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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 6

[ Page 8641 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

R. Neufeld: It's not too often that I have the pleasure of introducing someone in the House. With us today is the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson, and the city manager, Colin Griffith. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: Today I have the privilege of introducing a number of individuals from the Keep Shaughnessy Open Coalition. Russ Hunter, Tom McKenna, Sylvia Hill, Lavina Wong and Ann Massey are in the galleries. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to acknowledge the passing away of a great British Columbian and a great Canadian. Dan Culver was a renowned adventurer and outdoorsperson. A number of years ago he was one of an elite group of Canadians to have scaled Mount Everest. Prior to setting off to the China-Pakistan border to climb K-2, the world's second-highest peak, Dan dedicated the climb to the cause of protecting the Tatshenshini-Aishihik watershed. He and his two climbing partners reached the summit of K-2, but while descending on July 7, Dan tragically fell to his death.

It may be unknown to members of the Legislature that the "shen" in Tatshenshini means "spirit" in the native language. I would hope that in recognizing and appreciating his life, we would be aware of Dan exemplifying the spirit of the great outdoors. I want to inform the House that I will be seeking to identify a feature in the Tatshenshini area which will ensure that his name lives on.

A. Warnke: In the gallery today is a member from the project to review adult guardianship. Would the House please welcome Honor Hill, who is also a friend of mine.

Hon. T. Perry: I would like to add briefly to the commemoration of Dan Culver made by the Minister of Environment. I was privileged to know him slightly. He was one of the early defenders of river conservation in B.C. I believe it was in Dan's raft that dignitaries took the first B.C. Rivers Day trip on the Thompson River back in 1980 or '81, or thereabouts. He had a significant role in the conservation movement in B.C., and he's certainly going to be very sadly missed by a lot of British Columbians.

J. Weisgerber: In the House today is the administrator of the city of Dawson Creek, Harold Hanson. Harold is joined by his lovely wife Janice and their daughter Inge-Jean. Would the House please make Harold and his family welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us here in the galleries today are four friends of mine, Mr. Bhupinder Singh and Mrs. Charan Kaur Dhillon from Vancouver, and their relatives, Avtar Singh and Gurbax Kaur Bains, who are here from England. Would you please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome Kirk Duff, his wife Myra and their children Michael, Christine and Kyle, to Victoria. Kirk was my campaign manager, and he's also a counsellor in the city of Castlegar.

Hon. J. Cashore: Would the House join me in welcoming Graham and Diane Aiken of Victoria, who are here in the gallery along with my sister, Jessie Ann Orme of Agincourt, Ontario. Those of you who want to know some of the factors that went into my upbringing and the reason that I turned out the way I did should talk to Jessie Ann.

Hon. G. Clark: The Minister of Labour, who is not here right now, asked me to introduce on his behalf one of his constituents, Ernie Robertson. I ask all members to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased, hon. Speaker, to introduce the second miscellaneous bill. This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes. Rather than try to describe the provisions in detail, given the two-minute limit, I will simply read the names of the statutes that are amended by this bill: Blind Persons Contribution Act; Bonding Act; British Columbia Transit Act; Criminal Injury Compensation Act; Family Relations Act; Financial Administration Act; Health Act; Health Emergency Act; Hotel Room Tax Act; Inflation Control Act;

Interpretation Act; Limitation Act; Lottery Corporation Act; Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991; Motor Fuel Tax Act; Provincial Court Act; School Act; Sheriff Act; Social Service Tax Act; Taxation (Rural Area) Act; Tobacco Tax Act; and finally, Workplace Act.

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading debate. I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 80 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

AUSTRALIAN ROCK BAND SERVED WITH COURT ORDER NOTICE

G. Farrell-Collins: There's a report in the media today that some guests from Australia who arrived in British Columbia yesterday were served with

[ Page 8642 ]

a notice of a Supreme Court order by the customs brokers. I think it's extremely unfortunate. I would ask the Premier if he will commit, on behalf of all British Columbians, to issue an apology to those visitors from Australia and to make sure that all people who come to British Columbia, whatever their political views, are welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not aware of this particular issue, so I will take it under advisement.

The Speaker: I will recognize a supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is an Australian musical band called Midnight Oil, which is coming to British Columbia in order to make a political protest about logging in Clayoquot Sound. Customs officials at the border served them with a copy of the injunction. I think that was an unfortunate welcome to British Columbia.

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm advising him first, hon. Speaker.

The question is: will the Premier, on behalf of all British Columbians, issue an apology to those people from Australia and let people know that when they come to British Columbia, they're all welcome, despite their political views?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Of course we welcome people who want to come here from Australia. Since I'm one-quarter Australian, I particularly welcome fellow Australians. I won't tell you how my ancestors got to Australia from England, but what I can say to our Australian visitors is: "G'day."

[2:15]

RELOCATION OF REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF FORESTS

W. Hurd: The B.C. Buildings Corporation has purchased two and a half acres in Nanaimo at a cost of $960,000 and intends to build a 55,000 square-foot building. Can the Ministry of Forests advise the House whether the Ministry of Forests will be occupying most of this 55,000 square feet of brand-new office space?

Hon. D. Miller: It certainly gives me pleasure to respond to that question. The people in Nanaimo are absolutely delighted that we are moving the regional headquarters of the Ministry of Forests from Burnaby to Nanaimo. We're moving it back into the region. People will be closer to the forests, and they will be there to do a better job. Certainly the mayor of Nanaimo was delighted with the prospect of 150 new, good-paying jobs in Nanaimo. We will be constructing....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the minister to complete his reply.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue really rests with BCBC. There will be a new building constructed to house my ministry. I believe there are still ongoing attempts to see if we can combine the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks people in the same building.

W. Hurd: It's a shame that the minister doesn't recognize the value of conference calls and fax machines. I understand that this new building is going to cost between $3 million and $4 million. When you add the cost of the land acquisition, we're dealing with a significant investment of $6 million to relocate 150 employees from Burnaby. I ask the Minister of Forests: instead of providing high-priced office space for ministry personnel, how many trees would that plant in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: The Forests critic seems unaware of the forest region that this office will serve. Perhaps I can enlighten him. The Vancouver forest region not only encompasses the Fraser and Soo timber supply areas but encompasses the Mid-Coast, the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island. It's a fact that 54 percent of the work takes place on Vancouver Island, and it makes sense to have the regional headquarters here.

FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR CHILLIWACK RIVER

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Recognizing how devastating floods can be -- which we see every day on television -- the Chilliwack River Valley ratepayers' environmental management committee met with the minister about a month ago and proposed a number of measures be taken for added protection. Since the minister expressed real appreciation for their proposal, has he made a decision on the request for work to be undertaken?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, I have not made a decision. We are still in consultation within our ministry following the information that we have received. Admittedly, we are dealing with an urgent issue, but in the context of fiscal restraint.... The committee that came forward representing the Chilliwack River did a very good job, and we are seeking to work with them as appropriately as we possibly can.

H. De Jong: To allay people's fears of another flood, and with only a two-month window that allows work to be done in the river, can the minister assure this House and the people of the Chilliwack River Valley that commitments will be made for at least what work can be done within that two-month window?

[ Page 8643 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I will commit to continue to work diligently to seek to resolve this, but we have to be fiscally responsible at the same time.

COMMONWEALTH GAMES TRACK INSTALLATION CONTRACT

A. Cowie: My question is to the minister responsible for the Commonwealth Games. A Burnaby consortium, CDR Construction, claims they bid $202,000 less than the winner on a surfacing contract. The winner was Martin's Surfacing from Seattle, which pledged about $200,000 as a donation on a bid of $580,000. Is it this government's policy to award Commonwealth Games contracts based on a contractor's pledging donations to the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. R. Blencoe: To the member and to the House, obviously we have some concerns with the report this morning, and I have asked for a report on the issue. I would like to point out to the House and to the former government that it was this government that insisted on an umbrella agreement with the Commonwealth Games Society. As a result of our due diligence in ensuring that Canadians are protected, over 90 percent of our contracts have gone to British Columbian and Canadian companies.

I also want to inform the House that the work that was contracted was for track and international sporting events. We have to accommodate the international standards set by those bodies. The Burnaby bid was very close to the successful bid, but it was not the best in terms of athlete safety or performance or did not meet international standards. We have to meet international standards to ensure that the games are highly successful.

A. Cowie: CDR Construction surfacing product was good enough for the Los Angeles games and several other games. Also, this company uses recycled rubber from B.C. tires. With these considerations, surely this company should have been given the contract, because it had the lowest bid.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that the Chair did not hear a question in that, and I will.... Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Why wasn't this company given the contract under those conditions?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have to again inform the member that an international test by independent analysis was applied to all the companies bidding, and it was reported and stated that the American company was the best in terms of safety and standards. The international bodies insisted on that, and they met all the requirements. The bids were close, and the Commonwealth Games Society satisfactorily analyzed all the bids. I have to report to that member and to the House that because of the umbrella agreement we try to ensure that B.C. bids are met first, but we have to meet good business practices and good safety standards.

KORBIN COMMISSION

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. Last year the Premier appointed Judi Korbin to head up a commission on accountability and cost-effectiveness in the public sector. At that time the Premier announced that the budget for this commission would be $1 million. It has now been revealed that the actual amount spent by the Korbin commission was $1.4 million. I don't know if this is the government's idea of accountability and cost-effectiveness in the public sector, but I wonder if the Premier could tell us if taxpayers can expect all NDP-appointed commissions to overrun their budgets by 40 percent.

Hon. G. Clark: It is important for all members to remember that any individual appointed under the Inquiry Act is independent of the Ministry of Finance and other budgetary scrutiny. That's an important principle, and I would think that this member would be particularly cognizant of the separation between the executive council and those appointed under the Inquiry Act in order to protect the independence of those commissions.

Having said that, it was announced at the time that we expected that a one-year commission would translate into about $1 million. That is exactly what it cost. In consultation with this independent inquiry commissioner we extended the time for about six more months. The actual amount is about $1.4 million, which is exactly what was anticipated in terms of the cost per month of that inquiry. There was no formal budgeting process -- nor can there be any -- which would impinge upon the independence of anybody appointed under the Inquiry Act.

D. Mitchell: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, who clearly understands the informality of the budget-making process in this government. Over the past year or so Commissioner Korbin has been paid $192,000 for a job that she completed on a three-day-a-week basis. That's awfully nice work if you can get it. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House if this is the model he supports for remuneration in the public service of British Columbia -- part-time work for quadruple-time pay?

Hon. G. Clark: It's disappointing that when the commission was announced, I didn't hear any criticism from the member about the budget or the per-diem expenses of the Korbin inquiry. Those have been a matter of public record in the province for over a year. Ms. Korbin's rate in her professional capacity is significantly higher than $1,200 a day. She did, of course, do other work associated with her profession. We asked someone who is a leader in the profession. In return for doing that kind of work, the per-diem costs were significantly lower than otherwise.... Obviously it is an expensive proposition. The total costs were about $1.4 million. I can assure members that we will

[ Page 8644 ]

save more than that as a result of the excellent work and advice she has provided to the government.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CORE PROCESS

K. Jones: Yesterday the provincial ombudsman initiated her own investigation into the Clayoquot decision. This marks the second time in as many months that this government has been investigated for its role in the Clayoquot. One of her chief concerns is with the deliberate omission of the Owen commission from the process. Will the Premier now admit that excluding CORE from the Clayoquot decision was a mistake? Further, can he assure the House that this mistake will not be repeated?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer to the first question is no, so there's no need to answer the second question.

K. Jones: Crown prosecutors have recently applied to try Clayoquot protesters for criminal offences rather than civil offences. Had this government permitted its own CORE process to deal with the Clayoquot, this situation might never have happened. Why should the people of B.C. have to suffer because of the Premier's weak leadership and his inability to follow the government's own process?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the people of British Columbia are well aware that the community worked very hard for four years, in a process that was set up by the previous government, to try to reach a compromise and a consensus on the Clayoquot area. Certain parties dropped out of that process, and a consensus could not be reached. When this government appointed the CORE commission and appointed Stephen Owen as the commissioner, we made a conscious decision that Clayoquot would be excluded from the CORE process because that process was being completed at the community level.

I didn't hear the members object at that time; I didn't hear them object when that committee completed it. I didn't hear the member question the goodwill that went into that process or say that this government let the community give it a good try. They couldn't reach a consensus. It was decision time, and this government had the courage to make a balanced decision on the Clayoquot.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I wish to answer a question taken on notice on Monday of this week.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

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

Hon. D. Marzari: The question raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands regarded a bill introduced recently in the United States Senate that had an impact on the British Columbia cruise ship industry.

[2:30]

Last year the port of Vancouver had a record-breaking cruise season with nearly 450,000 passengers, and this year we are looking forward to 500,000 passengers coming through our facility. The industry expects that it will contribute $100 million to the B.C. economy, and it will bring in $48 million in tourist spending alone.

However, annual reports of bills being introduced in the United States Senate come forward. The revocation of the Jones Act is an annual event in the United States. Our ministry and intergovernmental relations are in constant contact with the federal government on this issue and watch these bills being put forward on an annual basis.

I want to assure the House that our two major cruise ship companies, Princess lines and Holland America Westours, have gone on record and said that Vancouver is their port of preference. Vancouver is the place they want to position themselves. Vancouver -- and therefore British Columbia -- is a friendlier port, it's closer to Alaska, and it serves their interests well. Once again, we will monitor the situation carefully, and our contacts with the federal government will continue, but I can assure this House that our cruise ship industry is the fastest-growing in the world. In British Columbia and Vancouver we are doing exactly what needs to be done to promote cruises and tourism.

Presenting Petitions

L. Reid: I rise to table a petition representing 90,000 taxpayers. People from all over this province have once again voiced their concern regarding the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital: "We the undersigned urge you to keep Shaughnessy Hospital open to protect quality health care services in British Columbia."

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Committee A in the Douglas Fir Room will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. In the House I call committee on Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act.

MULTICULTURALISM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 39; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

K. Jones: I'd like to explain that the official opposition supports the general direction of the Multiculturalism Act. We have a few items of concern, but by and large the principle of multiculturalism per se is motherhood and very appropriate for this body to support. It would be rather unfortunate if we had to speak against the principle of it. With regard to the

interpretation of "council," we have no question with that.

C. Serwa: I failed to note in second reading the other day that when the original advisory council referred to in

section 1 here was named in Vancouver,

[ Page 8645 ]

the only one of the entire opposition caucus at that time to be present was the hon. Chair. It's really rather interesting that the hon. Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism seems to want to take sole proprietorship. I can understand that; nevertheless, she can't change the pages of history. But perhaps in

section 1 the minister can advise me of the reason, other than that attempt to take sole proprietorship of the committee, why she has decided that the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism should now be known as the Multicultural Advisory Council.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to acknowledge, as we did during second reading, that the work of government and of the multicultural committee in respect to developing policy -- now enshrined in this act -- has gone on for a period of time. That reflects the broad-base support for the legislation that we're debating today. The name of the council is consistent with other councils that are established by government in various statutes.

J. Tyabji: I note that the emphasis has changed so that an advisory council, first, on multiculturalism.... Are there any parallel advisory councils to this one? Will this one be working in concert or at the same level as other advisory councils? If so, which ones?

Hon. A. Hagen: I wouldn't pretend to be able to name all of the advisory councils that exist by statute, but I do know, for instance, that in my ministry we have an Education Advisory Council, which is also mandated through legislation. There are others that are mandated through legislation as well.

J. Tyabji: Would this advisory council be working at the same level as an advisory council on gender quality, for example? Is that the nature of this? If not, then we see -- and I think the member for Okanagan West was getting at it -- that there's not a lot of difference between Multicultural Advisory Council and Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, except the emphasis is on advisory council. It is specified. I'm just wondering if there are parallel bodies that it will be working in concert with.

Hon. A. Hagen: The work of the Multicultural Advisory Council certainly encompasses a broad range of government ministries and Crown corporations. We will be dealing with the purpose of the legislation, the policy under government and the general work of the council. I can note, again, that there are many councils of government, and where there are overlapping interests certainly this council could, either of its own choosing or with requests from the minister responsible, deal with those overlapping issues.

Again, if I could come back to education, in the work of the council this year we have discussed race relations and education policy as it relates to young people. There's a Seniors' Advisory Council. Culturally sensitive services for older people might be an issue that the Multicultural Advisory Council would wish to discuss with that council. There's a Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities.

It only takes our imagination to know that the Multicultural Advisory Council may have interests or concerns that cross the work of other councils that advise government. I imagine there could be a cooperative, collaborative and consultative working relationship that might be established around policies or initiatives where they would want to share information and perspectives.

J. Tyabji: One last question. I know that we might be able to canvass this under

section 5, but with this bill it's hard to know exactly where it would come in. To what extent will the function of the council, in terms of the

interpretation of "council," be a driving force behind something like Bill 66 or some of the other policies of the government?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's important as we go through committee to look at the purposes, policies and accountability of the act. As we go through the various sections, we'll see the ways in which some of those working relationships are there. We can probably then discuss some of those specifically. The bill provides for the government to work within the framework of policy set forth in the legislation and with accountability that recognizes that multiculturalism and multicultural issues are not the purview or concern of one minister or ministry; they involve all ministries of government. In fact, I believe that they involve all of us as legislators, as well.

J. Tyabji: This is my last question under this section. Considering the rest of the bill, why would the advisory council be limited to multiculturalism? The element that's different in this, as opposed to Bill 66, is the issue of gender. Was there any initiative here whereby initially it was going to be the advisory council on hiring policy, for example, with regard to it just dealing with multiculturalism? Was that something the minister grappled with when drafting this bill? Because that is the one element that's not in here but is in Bill 66.

Hon. A. Hagen: If we look at the "Multiculturalism policy" in

section 3 -- we haven't got to it yet -- we deal with the participation of people from different ethnic and national heritages in the full life of society, and we speak about the economic, social, political and cultural life of society. Broadly, we're talking about people from different places of origin, ancestries, religions or ethnicity having that right as a matter of policy. That's very strongly promoted in the policy statements in

section 3.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

C. Serwa: A few minutes ago the minister indicated that the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism has been responsible for many of the recommendations that have gone into this particular act. I believe that is true, to a degree. I would like the minister to respond to this, because she made reference to the advisory council.

[ Page 8646 ]

Why did the minister fire all the previous members of the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism if she holds so much faith in the work they have accomplished?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I don't believe that the question relates to this bill; it would perhaps be more appropriate as a question on the estimates.

Let me just refer to the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, which presently serves as an advisory body to government. It follows on from the council appointed by the previous administration. As the minister, I have met with them and have received reports of their work. Those reports in fact became a foundation, from the developmental work of the first council, to government.

[2:45]

We then set up a new process to ensure that the council that would advise on multicultural issues would be chosen not by government in and of its own deliberations but through a process of nominations from the multicultural community. Through the good offices of the multiculturalism branch of the ministry, we set out to canvass literally hundreds of organizations across the province to provide us with names of men and women from different parts of the province whom they felt could serve in representing multicultural issues on an advisory committee. I also advised them at that time of the process by which we would renew the committee on an annual basis.

As a new government, we set up a new process of consultation and outreach to the multicultural community for their suggestions and nominations about who should sit on the multicultural advisory committee. From an excellent array of literally dozens of applications, as minister I set out with the difficult task of looking to a balance of men and women from the different regions and ethnic and national groups.

As I have noted, hon. member, it is our intention to rotate the council on an annual basis so that we can have representation from communities not yet sitting on the council in a multicultural advisory way and so that different ethnic and national groups from different regions will be able to participate. I believe that that process of annual outreach nominations from the community will ensure that we have the broadest voice and representation on the council.

This also gives me an opportunity to reflect on the reports that I have received -- and I have done that on previous occasions through estimates from the first council -- and to commend the very diligent work of this council.

The hon. member for Okanagan West notes that I have commented about their participation in this legislation. During second reading I noted that they, as well as the earlier council and others, assisted us in providing the framework for this work.

I look forward to a renewed council next year that will have some new faces as well as some continuing faces -- from some new regions and from some new national groups -- to join in the productive work that that council does on behalf of our multicultural community, and on behalf of our development of good policy and programs in government.

C. Serwa: Continuing on with what I think is the only appropriate

section to discuss this, and continuing on with the minister's remarks, perhaps I can have the latitude of some skepticism with regard to the choice of the ultimate appointments. I am concerned with the narrow scope of those individuals. I think it's fair enough to say -- from my observation of other councils and committees that have been set up -- that there has been an extreme of political bias.

I hope that is not exhibited in this council, because it is imperative not only that they represent a good cross-section of the multicultural philosophy from a great many different ethnic communities but also that they do not simply parrot the party line. I think the minister understands that. Whether my concerns are valid or not, I suppose will come out in the fullness of time.

Picking up on a point the minister made with respect to the multicultural aspect of these individuals, was a selection made on the basis of their commitment to the concept of multiculturalism or was the selection made on the basis of ethnicism? The minister continues to refer to communities. If the multicultural council is going to be successful and work to bring more harmony to the province, it is incredibly important that the concept of multiculturalism be firmly established as a primary commitment of all of those individuals.

When I listen to the minister, there is some uncertainty in my mind as to whether that has actually transpired as part of the criteria -- and the name indicates that it must have -- yet the minister continues to refer to ethnic communities. Perhaps the minister could advise me on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: I understand and support the member's concern that people do not come from a narrow perspective. Let me again give you some details about the nomination process. It's important to state that every person who sits on the council was nominated by a community. They may have been multicultural communities or communities that know a particular group. We were looking for representation that ensured that the community was multicultural; that it wasn't all people who were Indo-Canadian, Chinese or Japanese. We wanted to have that mix there, an obvious mix, because every one of us comes from a culture.

I come from a Scottish culture, as it happens. Every person who was nominated was asked to submit a r�sum� and a statement of their philosophy and perspectives on multiculturalism, and to give me, as minister, their views on how they felt they might contribute if they were selected to be a member of the council.

So we have all of those perspectives to assist us in a whole range of decisions, then, which assisted us in bringing a balance -- regionally, by gender, different communities and perspectives -- to the council. That preliminary work, which took a lot of time and effort on the part of the people whose names were put forward by their multicultural communities, was very valuable in assisting us to choose the council. With the support of those communities which found the approach very satisfying and productive, I intend to continue to work

[ Page 8647 ]

in that way with the rotation that will occur as the council is established for its next year's work.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister why, in

section 2(a), the word "creed" is not included among the various identifying factors of diversity.

Hon. A. Hagen: ...in the word "religion."

K. Jones: Is the minister absolutely sure that religion and creed are the same? I think they do have different meanings. This was brought to my attention by the president of the multicultural association, who thought it was one of the key words that they use regularly.

Hon. A. Hagen: When we deal with words that are broadly understood, I understand there may be some distinctions. We all know that in seeking to be inclusive we are often advised that different words could take us into very long lists in terms of meeting everyone's needs. But I do understand, and I think other people will understand, that we're talking here about people who may have differing and different beliefs.

K. Jones: Just to clarify for the minister, I believe that creed has a little broader intention than religion, and it allows for various other interests other than just the religious to be involved. That's why they use the term in describing it. The minister may want to give that some consideration and see whether she might want to stand that

section down and consider it for the future.

I'd like to go on to

section 2(b), which says: "to encourage respect for the multicultural heritage of British Columbia." Shouldn't that read: "respect for the multicultural heritage of British Columbians" to represent that the heritage is really of the people, not of the province?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe we are talking about the diversity of the province, and if we live in the province of B.C. we are indeed called British Columbians.

K. Jones: I have a little difficulty in how we would encourage respect for something to do with the province, other than maybe the structure of the province. Particularly in the case of multiculturalism, you're dealing with the people, and therefore the wording should reflect that we are dealing with the people.

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps the member might like to consider the subsection as a whole. The first part of it speaks about "the diversity of British Columbians" and then describes some of that diversity.

K. Jones: Actually, it was in recognition of the use of "British Columbians" in the first subsection that I felt appropriate to also use it in the second subsection. Wouldn't you agree?

The Chair: Hon. member.

K. Jones: With regard to the way subsection (

c) is worded -- "to promote racial harmony, cross cultural understanding and respect..." -- I would agree it should probably read "promote racial harmony and cross cultural understanding," but the rest of it is tokenism or just extra wording. It doesn't seem to have much concrete purpose. Could the minister explain why that last part of the phrase is included. I'm referring to "and respect and the development of a community that is united and at peace with itself." Does that mean something?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, it speaks to the goal of promoting racial harmony and cross-cultural understanding. I think all of us recognize that is very much related to the development of community. As we look at the work that goes on in multiculturalism, I note over and over again that it is in the development of community that those goals are manifest and exhibited. Much of the work that we do in our municipalities and in the regions of the province are very much rooted in community. A number of members spoke about that during second reading, when they spoke about their particular communities and work that had gone on in their ridings toward that achievement.

C. Serwa: I have a question on

section 2(

c) as well. Perhaps the minister explained the goal, but what is a community that is united and at peace with itself? Can the minister explain precisely what that means? To say it's a goal is fine, but can the minister give me her

interpretation of what is united and at peace with itself?

Hon. A. Hagen: We've spoken a great deal about diversity, which is a fundamental characteristic of British Columbia, hon. member. Within that diversity there is the coming together and the working together in respect of that diversity.

[3:00]

I note the prayer today. I wish I could quote it, but I thought the prayer with which the member opened today's session was very apt. It spoke about recognizing the diverse ways in which we develop and work within our province. I know that she might not have known we were going to be debating this particular bill today in committee, but I thought it was a very appropriate opening for today's deliberations.

C. Serwa: Who will make the judgment? Will it be the council's responsibility to make that judgment? How will the council go about it? Will the council target a community that it feels is not at peace with itself? I don't understand who decides and how you formulate that -- whether it's you who determines that definition, whether it's the government of the day or the council. What powers will the council have to fulfil the objective of this section?

[ Page 8648 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe that we are speaking about goals that all of us share in society and for which we all have a responsibility. I believe that communities that we live in and represent as MLAs, people who respect the diversity within these communities, people who are prepared to ensure that communities provide opportunity for full participation of all citizens -- all of us -- will assist with achieving this goal. But clearly in stating it in legislation, government is stating that we believe these are societal purposes. As I noted in second reading, it's my hope that all of us will share in both identifying with those goals and working to achieve them.

J. Tyabji: With regard to

section 2(a), who will be defining diversity and who will be providing the

definitions...? Here we have: "...the purposes of this Act: (

a) to recognize that the diversity of British Columbians as regards race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin is a fundamental characteristic of the society...that enriches the lives...." Who will be providing the

definitions for each of those characteristics, and particularly for the definition of diversity?

Hon. A. Hagen: I believe it's how we define ourselves, hon. member. I don't know how many times in meeting and talking to someone, one of the first things that you find out about.... What was it the Premier said today -- that he was a quarter Australian? All of us come from some kind of background that has a history, a country of origin, a language and a religion. So we define ourselves. But one of the ways that I often define the diversity reflected in our province is to note one of the records we have about the children who enrol in our schools.

There are over 100 different birth languages spoken by children who enrol in our schools. So we are an incredibly diverse province as a result of the way in which language helps to define some of the backgrounds from which we come.

J. Tyabji: I understand the minister saying that to a large extent the diversity is a matter of perspective. My point is that this Multiculturalism Act will be the vehicle through which Bill 66 and some of the other legislation will be enacted, in order, as

section 2(

d) says, "to foster the creation of a society...in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation of all British Columbians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia," which are all laudable goals. I should say that I am not taking exception to the goals stated in the purposes section. It just seems to me that in terms of legislation it is very important to have

definitions for these -- particularly diversity. When we say "race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin," I don't know how place of origin is relevant. So could the minister provide some framework for these, or will there be regulations or an accompanying book so we have a better understanding of

section 2(a)?

Hon. A. Hagen: Let me respond by looking at this legislation broadly. This is legislation, such as we have in many parts of Canada, that defines our fundamental characteristics and values. As subsection (

d) of this

section clearly states, those values are such that as citizens people have the right to fully participate in our society, with no impediments. That value is now encompassed and stated as one of the purposes of the bill we're debating.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, however, it is critical to tighten up the purposes

section of the act in terms of

definitions, because we know that all the other ministries must report to the Multicultural Advisory Council. We'll be canvassing that in later sections of the bill. Although this multicultural body is advisory, it also has a process to take in, as we see in

section 7, which we'll get to later. But

section 2 must be defined, because

section 7(1) says: "Every ministry and every government corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act must, on or before May 31 of each year, submit an annual report to the minister setting out the initiatives that it has undertaken in the period for which the report is prepared...."

If we don't define diversity, race, culture, heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin in the purposes section.... We know that every single ministry of government has to report back on the basis of those

definitions. Is the minister saying, then, that it will be at the discretion of every minister of those ministries to define the limits of the perspective of that? If it is loosely defined and if we want to take the argument for a minute that every individual.... Let's say that we are in a society where the majority happens to be white, as is the case we have right now, and where traditionally we have had males dominating within the power structure. I understand that there are many initiatives of the government that are meant to address that through affirmative action. We have a situation here where the

definitions are not provided. So in theory, every white male can stand up and say: "On the basis of these terms, I wish to be treated under the purposes of the act, recognizing that I have a race, cultural heritage and religion that is to be promoted under the purposes section."

If we don't define it in terms of diversity -- if the minister is saying diversity -- will there, for example, be an attempt by the government to give equal weight within the purposes

section of this act? For example, if the diversity of the society is 70 percent white, 20 percent Oriental and 10 percent East Indian, will that somehow be taken into account in terms of diversity, within the meaning of this act? Or is it going to be something slightly different, and will it be at the discretion of each minister? This act will be the funnel through which all the other ministries will have to report in order to achieve the objectives set out here. That's why I think it's very important during this debate that we tighten up some understanding of at least

section 2(a).

Hon. A. Hagen: I think it's very important for us to note that with this act we are noting and valuing the differences that exist within our society. We are not promoting any particular group or place of origin;

[ Page 8649 ]

we're recognizing diversity. Secondly, in the purposes of the act we're talking fundamentally about values which are consonant with our Charter and with generally held principles we all recognize in society.

We come to some of the issues of accountability that the member is speaking about. The Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism has a responsibility to advise government on actions that could help us achieve policies. The policies are outlined in

section 3, which I imagine we'll be moving to very shortly. One of the tasks of the minister responsible is to advise government on ways to achieve those policies. There is a wide range of initiatives we might want to be looking at as government, which are government policies designed to achieve those goals.

If we want to move on to policies, we might look at some of the initiatives that this government has taken to date with respect to achieving those policies -- policies which have in fact evolved from broad consultation with the community over the last four years -- and at ways that we might anticipate in the future. Those are future policy government initiatives that come under various ministries. My job now as Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism would be to advise on those.

But we're talking broadly here of government initiatives rather than of something with a narrow funnel, if I could use your word, or a prescription that's associated with it. I think this would not characterize the very nature of this bill in any way accurately.

J. Tyabji: I have two lines of questioning that I want to pursue, following the minister's answers. First, does the minister believe that the differences or the diversity of our society have not been adequately valued prior to this act and were not adequately protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. A. Hagen: The multicultural community really has, I think, an understanding of the value of putting the government's commitment into statute. Having as part of the laws of the province something that has been debated in the Legislature and supported by legislators provides a statement that is stronger than policy that has existed up until this time. The multicultural community understands that the act is in fact a statement of commitment and that by virtue of debating it in the parliament of British Columbia, government is dealing with those issues.

The support of legislators is there and has put its stamp on that policy and on the ways in which it will be implemented and for which government will be accountable.

J. Tyabji: So the minister is saying that the differences were valued before through policy that wasn't adequately enforced; at least, that's my

interpretation of what has been said. The follow-up to that, then, is: since this government is completely in control of government policy and even the regulations, why would the minister choose to legislate policy when the minister could actually be driving policy through cabinet to achieve exactly the same goals?

Hon. A. Hagen: There are many ways in which government deals with its goals, as you well know. There are two points in responding to your question. First of all, in bringing forward the legislation we have in fact enshrined the policy in legislation, which has allowed us to review it in consultation with the community. The other part of legislation that's extremely important is accountability, and later on we'll be discussing the accountability mechanisms in the legislation. Being monitored through accountability mechanisms established in the legislation is an important attribute of the policy.

I believe, too, that setting up the council by statute puts it in the same category as other councils of importance within our work with the broader community. With the passage of this act the Multicultural Advisory Council will be enshrined in statute, as are other very important councils to government. As we noted earlier in the discussion around the working relationships, the status of that council is then strengthened because the accountability is there, and the clear advisory role in relationship to government is part of the laws of the land.

It's symbolic, but it's also practical and workable, and in both of those ways having the legislation is, I think, significant.

J. Tyabji: The minister gave me exactly the answer I was looking for in her first answer, and that was that the reason the policy has been brought forward in a legislative form is that now we have multicultural policy of the government enshrined in legislation. As far as I can see, that's a precedent. I don't know that I've seen such a far-reaching policy in legislative form before. Maybe the minister can expand on that, but I have yet to see that. That is a major change, and obviously we can get to that under

section 3.

[3:15]

The second answer the minister gave was accountability, and that leads me to the second line of questioning, which I'll get back to in a second, and that was: accountability of what? We don't have the

definitions yet.

The minister said that this act now sets up the Multicultural Advisory Council by statute. That could be done without enshrining policy. It wasn't necessary to take that unprecedented move and put policy in legislative form. I'm sure the minister can appreciate.... For example, on the opposition side, one might say: "In two years there might be a different government in place.

If I were in government right now and I had a certain policy of multiculturalism, why would I put it in law except to say that this legislation, which is policy, will now be binding on anyone who comes forward?" Who would really be in a position to amend it or even free oneself up to not have it in legislation and keep it in policy? The council could have been set up by statute without putting policy into legislation.

The fourth thing is that the minister said that taking it from the policy and putting it into statute form is largely a symbolic move. I disagree very strongly with that. I don't think it's symbolic at all. I think that this is a very clear example of social engineering. Although I

[ Page 8650 ]

have to say very clearly that the objectives are laudable, I think that this method of social engineering by putting policy into legislation is a disquieting precedent. We'll see later on in the sections the role of the minister and the executive council, the reporting mechanism of the other ministries and the way that the other ministries now are forced by statute to report to this advisory body on multiculturalism. Although the objectives are good, I think that putting the policy into legislation is an unnecessary step. I am sure the minister can see that any future government will be bound by statute to the NDP policy on multiculturalism.

Those points are in response to the minister's points. The minister may have some responses to that, which I would welcome.

The second line of questioning goes back to her second point with regard to accountability. What are the other ministries accountable on, since we don't have a definition of race, cultural heritage, place of origin, ethnicity or ancestry? Who is going to define that? Earlier in the debate the minister said that this minister advises the other cabinet ministers on how they are to take action to meet the legislation on policy. If that's true, then this minister will be defining those words for her colleagues. So would the minister please share with the House her

definitions and the advice that she will be giving with regard to the

definitions within

section 2(a)?

Hon. A. Hagen: I am having a little difficulty with the member's line of questioning, because it appears she doesn't support the concept of legislation in respect to multiculturalism. I just want to make that point. I also want to clarify that in speaking to the legislation, I have spoken to both its symbolism and its practical results, and I want to develop the practical aspect of this a little bit. This is enabling legislation, as is much of our legislation.

I don't want to get into a long and philosophical debate, because I think that the hon. member and I should probably have a discussion over tea in respect to some of that. But any legislation does in fact have a policy base, and it's expressed in different ways. I'm responsible for the School Act, and it has a policy base. It's a much longer statute, running into the hundreds of clauses, but there's a policy base for every part of that legislation. In fact, no legislation is passed....

We're dealing with any number of pieces of legislation right now that are very important and that have come out of similar processes to this: consultation around policy that then goes into legislation.

Let me be very specific about two matters. When I speak about providing advice as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, that advice is broad in the context of the policy. It's also interactive -- if I could use that overworked word -- in that ministries themselves take initiatives and clearly have tasks promoting the policy of multiculturalism, which are related to racial harmony and opportunities for people to participate fully in the cultural, economic, social and political life of our society. Beside me sits the Minister of Social Services.

In her ministry is an interministry committee that is dealing with one of the policy goals; namely, that services be culturally sensitive. We spoke a little while ago about older people and the fact that the Multicultural Advisory Council and the Seniors' Advisory Council of government might very well desire to talk together about the health and social needs and needs for support services of older people, who come perhaps from different heritages and cultural backgrounds -- a very practical kind of activity relating to the policy.

In my own ministry we very actively work with the community through our multiculturalism branch, providing leadership, working in partnership, and working through legislation to ensure that the goals of our multicultural policy and our multicultural society are met. There is within this kind of work an incredible array and diversity of initiatives that various Crown corporations and government ministries take. As a result of the legislation, we'll have a formal process for that work to be received by the Legislature in annual reports.

It will be debated through the estimates of my ministry, as it is now, and in other estimates as well where issues relate to the policies of other ministries. So all of those are a part of the work of government -- the guts and sweat and hard work of people in government.

This provides the framework for that, a framework out there to be seen by all and discussed, amended and improved, because legislation doesn't stay static. There may very well be changes and amendments that might take place with our government and -- heaven forbid there should be another government that replaces us -- with another government. All of those are possible with the will of the House and the wisdom of the people who sit here and do the people's business, including the diverse people who make up our province.

J. Tyabji: The minister made a number of points there: that this is enabling legislation; that she doesn't want to get into a long, philosophical discussion; that all legislation has a policy base driving it; and that the minister is obviously very proud of the initiative that she has taken. She also basically put out that there is some sign that I don't support this legislation. I have to say that although I very much support the objective, I actually personally don't support this legislation, because I have a real problem with policy coming forward in legislation.

I'm sure the government side will be shocked and will no doubt quote me on that. Please, when you quote me, get it right: the objective is something I support, but I believe there's a different method to get to it. That's something I believe very strongly, and it has come out in other debates, as in the one over Bill 33.

Let me start with the minister's first point that this is enabling legislation and that many bills come forward in the form of enabling legislation. That's true, and we see it in my Ministry of Environment constantly. However, in enabling legislation you don't see things such as

section 3, the multiculturalism policy, and an absence of

definitions as in

section 2. One thing that enabling legislation has is a proliferation of

definitions that set out very clearly the parameters of the concepts involved in the legislation. Also, enabling legislation, by its very nature, necessitates regulations and policy outside of the statutes.

[ Page 8651 ]

That's the first thing. Second, the minister said that she's not sure whether she wants to get into a long philosophical discussion. I would encourage her to do so, because this is the forum in which to do it. The minister is obviously very proud of this legislation, and from a partisan perspective I understand that the NDP traditionally gravitates towards social engineering on things like this.

I don't dispute their right to do that, considering that they have a mandate for government, just as I'm sure the government will understand that as an opposition member who has a problem with social engineering, I don't agree that that's the way to do this. I would encourage the minister to get into a long and philosophical discussion, because maybe from that discussion we can glean the

definitions that we need to properly interpret

section 2.

The last thing that the minister said, which I would like to come back to, is that every piece of legislation has a policy base. Clearly that's true, because every government has an ideological perspective from which they form policy, which then drives legislation. However, it is incumbent on a government to amend legislation to suit that government's own policy and the government's own legislative direction. Although all bills have a policy base, very few of them, as the minister said, enshrine the policy in legislation. That's not something that's very common.

The reason it's not done is because policy is generally a partisan vehicle. Policy is something that accompanies the political partisan process. That's why it doesn't appear in legislation. It drives the legislation, it sculpts the legislation, but it doesn't usually appear in the legislation.

I'm not saying that this would be the case, but if the next government doesn't have the same policy, then rather than amending this legislation they would actually have to remove the policy section, which the minister can understand would be problematic, and then either introduce it in the traditional way, which is the policy of the government of the day, or bring forward, in legislative form, that government's policy.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I hear some members from the back bench saying: "Oh, this is a stupid debate." I encourage the members to get up in debate. Unfortunately we often hear comments from the back bench, but they don't stand up and give an ideological basis for the legislation that's coming through.

The minister has very correctly pointed out that there is always policy driving legislation; it's very seldom in the legislation. Quite clearly, this is a form of social engineering. The objective, I think, is laudable and commendable. It's an objective that we in the opposition share in terms of equal rights and no discrimination, but by its very nature

section 2 is discriminatory because it classifies people.

I would welcome the minister's comments in a philosophical dialogue to find out how we classify people on the basis of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin. How is that relevant in terms of government policy now that this is the

section the other ministries are going to be responding to?

The Chair: Before the minister answers, I would like to remind members that we are at committee stage of this bill. The purpose of committee is to examine the bill clause by clause, and although the purposes sections in these bills do get us into the difficulty of going back to a second-reading type of qebate, I would like to confine our remarks to a clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm speaking to the purpose part of the bill. In this legislation we are formalizing our commitment to multiculturalism and the process for us to deal with the diversity that we recognize. I want to make it very clear that we do not classify people in this bill. What we do in this bill is recognize and value that diversity.

J. Tyabji: Perhaps the minister could help me understand

section 2(a), where we have this very clear reference: "to recognize that the diversity of British Columbians as regards race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin is a fundamental characteristic of the society of British Columbia that enriches the lives of all British Columbians." In

section 2(

d) it goes on to talk about: "to foster the creation of a society...in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation...." If we don't have an understanding of what

section 2(

a) refers to, I don't know how we can understand the following sections or the rest of the bill.

[3:30]

For example, is the minister going to provide some definition of "place of origin"? I don't understand what that refers to. Is that a birth place, or somewhere that somebody has come from? Does it mean from the northern part of the province or a different part of the world? What does that refer to? Can we get some understanding of why the minister thought that was important to put it in there?

In terms of diversity, I believe that it tends to differentiate on that basis; if it doesn't, maybe the minister could tell me how. It seems to me that nothing in this bill goes beyond the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So under the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we already have legislation in place that will do exactly what this bill does. On a provincial level, what we need is government action on a policy side rather than on a legislative side. I still don't understand why we went from policy to legislation, or why we have these terms without any definition -- other than the minister saying that we define ourselves, and this minister will advise us of the ministry's definition.

Hon. A. Hagen: I didn't hear a question, but I believe that it's all of the above. The words speak for themselves.

H. De Jong: It's been rather interesting listening to the comments from both sides on this particular section. I have some concern about this

section and,

[ Page 8652 ]

actually, about the whole bill. We talk about British Columbia society in detail; we talk about communities in this bill, but we don't talk about Canadians. After all, they're all Canadians. If it were possible, I would have liked to have seen this kind of bill draped with the Canadian flag -- because that is what it's all about.

I realize that the purpose of this act is to recognize the diversity within British Columbia in particular. When we come to the area that promotes harmony, understanding and respect for communities, it doesn't say what kind of harmony we are trying to promote. I would like some comments from the minister on what kind of harmony she sees in bringing forth this bill. Is it the harmony to be truly Canadian, rather than just trying to get the multicultural groups to work together as a community? That is an important step toward Canadian citizenship; perhaps there is something more.

As Canadians, we are often accused of being less than proud when we sing our Canadian national anthem and other things that pertain to being proud to be a Canadian.

Hon. A. Hagen: I am not sure if the member is suggesting that members of our diverse communities are not proud to be Canadians. If he's speaking to the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, those are addressed in the policy section.

H. De Jong: I wasn't suggesting that new Canadians are not interested in being good Canadian citizens; I'm sure most of them want to be. I also recognize that there are some differences. As I said earlier, we are not always praised for being strong in our expression of being a Canadian. People come from various backgrounds, and as new Canadians -- and I've been one myself; perhaps I am still considered a new Canadian -- there are some things that offend some people.

Perhaps they don't so much offend people as they have difficulty understanding why things are done a certain way; why certain things must be one way when they have had the experience of them being quite different in their homeland. At times it may even touch on their cultural heritage or religious background.

From what I understand, this bill is trying to bring these things together in a way that we can live with each other in peace and harmony, which is a great thing, and nobody can argue against that. But during that process things may sometimes need to be conveyed to a group of people that may initially be somewhat hurtful to that group.

We have also passed Bill 33. That bill would not allow hatred in speech and so on, and I don't think we can argue with that point. I don't like hatred in speech either. At the same time, sometimes a point must be made that could be considered hateful to that particular segment of society in order that correction or proper understanding can be achieved on a certain issue. I am wondering whether the minister may want to comment on that, because I see some real difficulty.

We truly want to bring our cultural groups together and at the same time recognize that individual cultural backgrounds are also struggling to be Canadians. Whether that can be achieved without offending or going overboard in terms of the limitations of Bill 33 already passed in this House....

Hon. A. Hagen: I take it we are still dealing with purpose. This bill promotes multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a characteristic of our province and our country. I don't think I have any doubt about the knowledge that when people come to Canada, they are valued and respected as citizens who will potentially be taking out formal citizenship. I think that the achievement of understanding and harmony with people from many different backgrounds who live and work together and form communities is a fundamental characteristic that all of us learn about in history books.

I hear citizenship court judges describing that when I sit in a citizenship court. I believe that we're recognized throughout the world as a society that can live peacefully, with a multicultural understanding of people's diversities and an acceptance and recognition of those.

I have one more comment. I would never want to teach anyone a greater understanding of our society through the use of hatred. I do not believe that that strategy would be appropriate for learning to take place.

H. De Jong: I just want to confirm that I have not suggested that we can draw society together by using hatred. In my earlier comments, I said that sometimes a message may have to be conveyed that may be observed by a particular group of people as a message of hate when that's not necessarily so. But at the same time I want to clarify that point, because I have never suggested that. I have suggested that Bill 33 may in fact get in the way of achieving our goal of dealing with different cultures and religious backgrounds, in order to truly bring them under a Canadian banner.

J. Tyabji: I have a question for the minister regarding structure of the bill. I note that although

section 1 talks about the definition of "council,"

section 2 states the purposes of the act and makes no reference to the council, and

section 3 makes no reference to the council. When we look at the role of the council, it doesn't refer back to the purposes

section of the bill. I'm assuming that the council will be working to enact the purposes under

section 2.

Hon. A. Hagen: The purposes of the act apply to all British Columbians in terms of a statement of government policy, and they are statements of values that I believe all British Columbians share.

J. Tyabji: What is the role of the council, then, with regard to

section 2?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, perhaps when we get to

section 4, we can deal with that.

J. Tyabji: The reason I would like to know about the role of the council with regard to

section 2 is because of sections 2(

c) and 2(d), which we haven't spent enough time on yet.

Section 2(

c) reads: "...to promote racial

[ Page 8653 ]

harmony, cross cultural understanding and respect and the development of a community that is united and at peace with itself." I guess the implication is that we're not currently in that position. With that in mind, which body is going to be responsible for that? That's why I'm asking about the role of the council. Is the council going to be responsible for overseeing the government's actions and policies with regard to sections 2(

c) and 2(d)?

Hon. A. Hagen: The council advises the government on multicultural policy and on aspects of this legislation. It is an advisory body. We should note that it's part of the definition.

J. Tyabji: I would assume that the parameters through which it will work as an advisory body will be defined by sections 2 and 3 of this act. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: The advisory council is defined in sections that we have not yet come to. Perhaps if we proceeded, we could deal with the makeup and role of the council.

J. Tyabji:

Section 2(

d) is the most problematic if we don't have the adequate definition of the council, or at least the structure through which it will operate. But perhaps we can answer it before we get to the later sections. The purpose of the act, under

section 2(d), is: "to foster the creation of a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation of all British Columbians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia." If that is not confined to the council, if it is something that each ministry will be responsible to do now under that act, what financial resources will be provided? What are the parameters? To what extent will that deal with the private sector?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have already dealt with those matters in this year's budget debate, and we would be dealing with them in each budget debate, in the estimates of this ministry.

[3:45]

J. Tyabji: Actually, my question is not with regard to specific dollars. For example, when the Minister of Economic Development is reviewing projects with the Minister of Agriculture and looking at financing things that fall under their ministries, will they be driven by

section 2 of the act? To what extent will that affect their dealings with the private sector?

Hon. A. Hagen: We're dealing with the broad purposes of government in this legislation; we will eventually be dealing with the policy of government. The policy is translated into specific programs, which are decided upon annually by government, and for which resources are provided. The specifics of how any of this work would be done is annual work of government that is made accountable through our estimates process, where we deal with government programs in any of the ministries, including my own, where the policies might have an effect.

J. Tyabji: I'm keeping this under section (2) because I have looked through the rest of the bill, and nowhere else does it talk about development of a community or fostering the creation of a society. So in sections 2(

c) and 2(d), we basically have a mission statement for political movement. It's like a peace movement or the multicultural society, who no doubt have the same thing in their mission statements. I'm dealing with this in

section 2 because it doesn't appear anywhere else, after

section 3, where yes, we have the policy. The rest of it is structural. But we know that all members of cabinet will now be guided by sections 2(

c) and 2(d), because it says that the purpose of the act is to make sure that government does all these things.

Now, as the minister has said, even her own ministry will be dealing with this. I'm not asking for specific estimates-type answers. I'm asking to what extent, from the time that this bill is proclaimed, will it be driving negotiations with the Minister of Economic Development, for example, in the private sector. Is that the intent of this section?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, I'm not able to follow the intent of the member's questioning.

J. Tyabji: I'll try again. Every member of cabinet is responsible for this -- and not only the ones who are going to be financed directly, such as Social Services, Education and Health. The Economic Development, Forests and Agriculture ministers will now be responsible under this bill. When we see that the purpose is to foster the creation of a society in which there are no impediments to full and free participation, to what extent will that guide their negotiations with the private sector?

Is that the intent of this purposes section, which will be binding on all cabinet ministers, when we know that these cabinet ministers are dealing with the private sector? In their pursuit of following the directions of

section 2, will they be communicating that to the private sector? For example, if the Minister of Economic Development is reviewing a proposal that does not adequately address the objectives of the purposes of this act -- it doesn't address any of the multicultural needs of

section 2 -- to what extent will that minister be bound, under

section 2, to opt to foster the creation of this society and take issue with something going on in the private sector?

Hon. A. Hagen: In the legislation, hon. member, government is stating its beliefs about a society that recognizes the diversity of the population. That is the broad purpose of this legislation. In looking at that broad purpose we also recognize that we are stating a value that we believe is very broadly shared in our society. In our society people need opportunities for economic, social, cultural and political activity. I think all of us recognize that such a society thrives because people are able to participate and bring their talents and their initiative to that society.

[ Page 8654 ]

Whether we are working in public service or in the broader public sector, if we listen to the private sector and their recognition of our trade relationships and economic development, they recognize that full participation of all members of society is good for the economy, our cultural and political life and our international relationships. In that regard, I believe that all of us in our work in government are looking at ways to develop a society where those are the attributes, because that's a healthy and sustainable society, one that ensures that people have opportunities to participate and contribute.

The purpose statement is dealing with all of those goals which help to guide us as we work to have a full, rich, productive and involving society, whether we're dealing with Prince Rupert, Cowichan, the Okanagan, the Kootenays or the burgeoning area of the lower mainland.

J. Tyabji: Since these purposes will be driving the dealings of all the ministers -- both internally and externally, as the minister has outlined -- what will be the vehicle for communication of the purposes? Under this section, what will the minister use to not only communicate internally but to disseminate information on future government dealings with regard to the purposes section?

Hon. A. Hagen: We have spent a lot of time on this section, but the rest of the bill deals with the policies of our government and with the accountability mechanisms that will be a part of our communication. I think the bill provides a good, simple and clear statement of government goals. We report in a whole variety of ways to our various communities, and as government we will want to communicate in our communities about the initiatives to take action, particularly on the policy goals of government.

J. Tyabji: The question is not on the reporting process, because I think we still have a problem with accountability. I don't think we have adequately defined the terms of reference so that we can have a proper accountability process later on in the bill. But we can get to that later.

Considering that upon the proclamation of this bill the dealings of every ministry of cabinet will now be based on the purposes

section and the objectives of fostering the creation of a society without impediments, how will it be communicated to the people that the ministries are dealing with, so that they have a proper understanding of the objectives of the government through this act?

Hon. A. Hagen: Ministers have reviewed this bill in its process to the Legislature and, as with all legislation that we pass, will have the bill before them. We'll be dealing then with the policy, which is in fact how we deal with our goals. It would be good for us to be able to move to that section.

C. Serwa: Before I get to

section 2(d), it was my understanding that one of the original obligations given to the advisory council on multiculturalism was to come up with a multicultural policy that could be formalized in government legislation. As I listened to the minister on

section 2, it seems that this particular piece of legislation did not originate with the council at all; it appears to be the policy of the current government. Is that by accident, or was the original purpose of the advisory council somehow thwarted? Is this not related to any recommendations of the multiculturalism council but strictly government legislation? It's not clear to me. In fact, even the writing of the legislation appears to be from two different perspectives. The framework appears to be drafted by the council, while other sections appear to be drafted by the government. Perhaps the minister could clarify that before I go on to

section 2(d).

Hon. A. Hagen: I think I have answered that question. The policy in this bill has indeed come out of the advice of two multicultural committees. Although you won't find that the wording is exactly the same, hon. member, let me assure you that the work of the first multicultural committee and then the review of policy by the current multicultural committee has in fact formed the backbone and the framework for this, remembering that those committees are advisory to government and that their work is sometimes distilled for economy of language and avoidance of redundancy.

Both councils contributed significantly, through a great deal of excellent and very hard work, in helping to formulate the policy, which I believe they feel very strongly is strengthened by being placed in the bill that we're debating today.

C. Serwa: I appreciate those comments from the minister, because it is apparent that a number of perspectives are represented here, and the fine hand of government is also represented in

section

Section 2(

D) says: "to foster the creation of a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to the full and free participation of all British Columbians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia." Does the minister really believe that we are in fact creating a new society?

As a second-generation Canadian, I thought one of the major attractions of Canada is that because of our diverse makeup, we represent the type of culture where there are opportunities and no real limitations other than those that are either self-imposed or perhaps more genetic with respect to inherent ability, intelligence and all of those other factors which are really merit factors. Every ethnic group has a diverse range of abilities; we all recognize that.

It's hard for me to understand how we're talking about the creation of a society. The fine-tuning of a society is a process that will never end, but it's my understanding that we already have that society. We are the envy and the destination for people of almost any nationality in the world. The United States and Canada are recognized and appreciated in the world for their rights, justice, political systems and freedoms, as well as for the responsibilities that we share. Perhaps the minister would enhance my awareness of the creation of a society.

[ Page 8655 ]

Hon. A. Hagen: All of us are creating every day we live and work in a society. Nothing is ever finished in that regard; we still have work to do. All of us recognize that the potential of people is what our society is all about. It takes work to create and achieve that full potential of people living in our society.

C. Serwa: I have difficulty with the word "create," regardless of the minister's feelings on that. We already have that type of society. We're continuing to work to make the society better and more harmonious, and there is no end. We obviously have a goal: it's the journey there, which will be a very long road. In the end, I suspect that we will never fully reach the goals that we set forward.

[4:00]

The use of the word "creation" gives an entirely wrong connotation. It seems that the knights in shining armour, so to speak, are on white horses that are charging on to the scene. All of a sudden, out of chaos we are creating a brand-new society -- again, the social agenda and social order of the government of the day. It is inappropriate and presumptuous; it gives the wrong impression. We already live in that society, and we're working to build a better and more harmonious society. I think the minister understands that full well.

I don't suppose the minister would consider an amendment to the word "creation" that would be more appropriate, but the latitude that the legislation takes with it is beyond the scope of this particular bill.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

K. Jones: I move the amendment to

section 3 tabled in my name: that

section 3, subsections (

b) and (

d) through (

g) be amended by adding "gender" after "ethnicity."

On the amendment.

K. Jones: This seems like a glaring item left out of the various factors being considered in this policy. Gender is a very important factor, if we're going to correct some concerns about the multicultural community's involvement in our society. Gender should be included along with "race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin."

There is a great deal of gender discrimination in the community. Some parts of the community have a great deal of difficulty recognizing gender equality. I think that probably holds true within government, and it should definitely be addressed in the policy direction of the government to its various ministries and Crown corporations. If this were to be left out, it would be a shocking mistake. It would definitely give a different

interpretation to what multiculturalism means to this government.

We in the opposition put forward an amendment to add the word "gender," in order to more clearly recognize an area that needs to be addressed.

The Chair: The Chair finds your amendment to

section 3 to be out of order. Matters of gender may be covered under any or all of the categories defined in the purposes

section of the act, under

section 2(a).

J. Tyabji: As I said in earlier parts of the debate, I think there's a problem when we start to legislate policy and when we take what is basically an ideological perspective and put it into a statute. Having said that,

section 3(

e) states: "It is the policy of the government to...reaffirm that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin have no place in the society of British Columbia." My question to the minister is: are economic factors taken into consideration, in recognizing that the proliferation of hatred and discrimination is often tied to difficult economic times? If that is the case, would the government act under this section, from an economic perspective, to preempt

section 3(e)?

Hon. A. Hagen: I am not sure I'm clear about what the member is dealing with. If we look at

section 3(b), it states: "It is the policy of the government to...promote cross cultural understanding and respect and attitudes and perceptions that lead to harmony among British Columbians of every race...." There are many ways we would undertake to achieve that goal and to implement that policy. I could describe some of the work that's going on with Multiculturalism B.C., in cooperation with societies in many communities, and the work with municipalities that goes on in dealing with those issues.

As we work with our immigrant settlements grants, we work around promoting cross-cultural understanding in those areas as well. There are a wide variety of means that the government initiates, undertakes and has at its disposal to achieve the goals stated in this policy.

J. Tyabji: Let's leave

section 3(

e) for a minute and go to sections 3(

a) and 3(b). This minister is also the Minister of Education, and it is a policy of the government to "(

a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the racial and cultural diversity of British Columbians" and "(

b) promote cross cultural understanding and respect and attitudes and perceptions that lead to harmony...." Is there going to be an educational program that will take

section 3(

a) and (

b) into the classrooms?

Hon. A. Hagen: There already are.

J. Tyabji: I guess that goes back to my earlier point that I'm not sure why the policy had to be put into legislation.

The minister referred to

section 3(b) -- I think it's probably

section 3(e), myself. Either way, basically the point is that this is the policy of the government. The minister has said that the government is willing to take whatever action is necessary to promote it, recognizing that every study that cross-references economic conditions, in terms of unemployment rates and rising levels of poverty, with racial discrimination, hatred and violence finds that there's a very strong correlation. Is the government looking to the economic factor in the

[ Page 8656 ]

rise of racism and, if so, are there any programs in place to deal with that aspect of racial intolerance?

Hon. A. Hagen: There are programs of government that provide opportunities for the diversity of our population: in my ministry, through the education part, the multicultural branch and immigrant settlements; and through the Ministries of Advanced Education, Women's Equality and Social Services. All of those ministries have a mandate to provide services within the scope of their activities that reflect the needs of the diverse population in our province. They're too numerous to mention, but many of them are related to training, upgrading, opportunities to learn language and settlement issues. I believe those all contribute to achieving the goals set forth in the policy.

J. Tyabji: Actually the minister isn't quite understanding my question. If the debate takes off, if the third party takes some time with the section, I might run to the library and get some information. But generally speaking, where we'll see the most violence, intolerance and hatred come up in terms of ethnic rivalry would be in a case like east Vancouver, where there are a limited number of jobs, a very high unemployment rate and a very high poverty rate -- not that it's confined to that area, but that's one example.

You might have a situation where a white family is having a hard time finding employment, whether it be the head of the household or a single mother. However it works, there's some difficulty in achieving employment because of economic conditions. In that case there's often a high level of intolerance if they see people who they perceive to be of a different ethnic or racial background and who are employed.

I'm sure the minister is aware of a widespread misconception out there that immigrants are taking the jobs, and that's what I'm getting to. There's an economic factor that correlates to racial intolerance, violence and hatred that is not actually within what we would call the communities affected by the multicultural bill. It's the groups outside the multicultural society who are perceiving advantages being given to people within the multicultural society. That's where you get the resentment and intolerance building up: the perception of the economic factors by people outside the multicultural society. How is the government going to be addressing that?

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is dealing with the myth that people who are immigrants to our society take jobs from people in Canada -- and that clearly is a myth. One of the ways that we are providing leadership through Multiculturalism B.C. is working both in the public domain and with private employers to dispel that myth that immigrants take jobs. In fact, immigrants to our society add to the economy and to the diversity of economic opportunity.

J. Tyabji: Again, I think the minister has heard part of what I'm saying but not the intent. I understand that the myth is out there; in fact, it is that myth that tends to promote intolerance, violence and hatred. The problem isn't within the multicultural society but to some extent with a lack of education outside the multicultural society. Let's take it beyond the multiculturalism branch. Let's look at the Ministries of Economic Development, Agriculture, Forests, or whichever ministry we want to choose where there is economic wealth being generated or programs being fostered.

Is there going to be an attempt to recognize that often economic factors outside the multicultural society drive the intolerance and misunderstandings, and that some economic remedies have to take place outside the multicultural society so that they can lower their level of anxiety?

There has to be an education process, but there's also a serious problem of lack of employment opportunities, which leads to frustration and the need to direct that at someone. Often the multicultural society ends up being the scapegoat. That comes back to the question I asked originally: will this government take economic factors into account when targeting areas where there are high levels of racial intolerance, rather than just educating the people, and will it recognize that in areas where it occurs, there is a need for economic incentives to help the people outside the multicultural society who are having problems finding jobs?

Hon. A. Hagen: The member has a tendency to try to cover every ministry in her comments. She has a point to be made, but we will, through this bill, be looking at the work of all ministries in respect to achieving the policies that are outlined here. People from every walk of life and background have an opportunity to participate fully. Education, economic development, regional development and dealing with particular perspectives, issues and myths are important. The government has roles to fill in all of those areas -- roles in which we provide leadership and work in partnership.

This is a task that lies not only with government but also with the broader communities in which we live and work. That's one of the reasons why we have spoken about the importance of the development of communities, because there are various people and organizations in the public and private sectors that have important roles to play, with government providing leadership and partnership in these areas.

J. Tyabji: As a follow-up question, because the original question hasn't been answered.... The minister said I have a tendency to put all ministries under this bill. Actually, I don't; they're in this bill. This bill automatically, de facto, includes all the ministries, so it's not a tendency on my part. We have had a bit of difficulty cross-referencing this with the other ministries.

[4:15]

What I'm trying to get to is that there are economic factors, outside of the multicultural society, driving people outside the multicultural society to engage in activities that come under

section 3 of the bill. Considering that this is outside of the jurisdiction of this minister, but within the jurisdiction of this act through other ministries, what is the government

[ Page 8657 ]

planning to do about that? Is the government actually targeting some of the programs in other ministries, under

section 3 of this bill, to deal with economic factors that will specifically fall under

section 3(e)?

Hon. A. Hagen:

Section 3(

e) states that we reaffirm that violence, hatred and discrimination have no place in society, and therefore, as a policy goal, there are initiatives that we will be or are taking to deal with that matter. I have broadly outlined those initiatives, and we will be accountable for them next year when we deal with the estimates of my ministry and other ministries. The member can explore some of those programs in more specific terms then. Many of those programs have been discussed already in estimates in my ministry and other ministries.

These are statements of policy goals, and the bill states those goals and the method by which government will be accountable for working toward their achievement. Policies are goals, and we are working and will continue to work to achieve them.

I've outlined some of the means. When I spoke about canvassing all of the various ministries, it's not possible for me to outline all of those programs on behalf of all of those ministries at this time, but I have given a general sense of many of the initiatives that are in place.

G. Wilson: I truly am delighted to get into this debate. I was sorry I wasn't able to participate in the second reading stage, because what an exciting potential this bill has. I say that with full sincerity. As a member of a political party that has as its cornerstone the assistance and promotion of a multicultural society in Canada and British Columbia, we are delighted to see initiatives come forward that start to recognize that.

Under

section 3, I would like to get into the meat of some of the concerns I have with some of the language so that we understand where this government is coming from. Whenever one introduces legislation with respect to multiculturalism, and when there is a direction taken by government to seek to promote participation of individuals in society, we run into a difficult philosophical question. I am sure this government has grappled with this philosophical question -- that is, how you counter the rights of the individual versus the rights of a collective entity.

We have to understand how individual rights and liberties -- which, of course, is the foundation of liberalism, which is one of the reasons we are interested in it -- are weighed against the right of a collective interest, which is described in this bill. I wonder if the minister might comment, by way of general discussion under

section 3.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I notice that

section 3(c), for example, says, "promote the full and free participation of all individuals in the society of British Columbia," making no reference at that point to anything with respect to ethnicity, mother tongue or any of those issues. We're talking about individual rights.

Under subsection (

d) it says: "foster the ability of each British Columbian, regardless of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry...." That tells us that this bill promotes the rights of individual British Columbians. Yet it's coming under a multicultural title, which would argue that in looking at the right of the individual there is going to be some promotion of a multicultural concept at work here.

We see in subsection (e), for example, the very positive statement that we: "reaffirm that violence, hatred and discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin have no place in the society of British Columbia." One would argue that violence, hatred and discrimination on any basis has no place. I don't care what the basis is; it has no place in British Columbia. But we are now linking it into what I would say are the collective interests. We obviously know about racism and discrimination on the basis of race and origin, and we have been through that in other debates.

By way of that

preamble, I wonder if the minister might tell us how she sees.... If this bill protects the full participation of each individual in British Columbia, how is that manifested to juxtapose the kind of interests under

section 3 that are prepared for the collectives, which are determined on the basis of race, culture, cultural heritage and language? How are those two reconciled in this bill?

Hon. A. Hagen: As we look at this

section -- which has seven or eight statements of policy -- I believe it is important to read them as a series, all of which help us look at the various aspects of the promotion of people, both individually and from their diverse cultures, in a full and rich array of activities that enable them to be members of our society and to enjoy the richness of being British Columbians.

When we speak of the full participation of individuals, we are dealing with the issue of the potential of each person. I think all of us understand that individual potential. But we are speaking here about the diversity of the people who make up the citizenry in our province. We know that we are dealing with issues where opportunity, racism and impediments are still in place. We spoke about those before you came into the debate, hon. member.

In spite of the multicultural heritage that is so much a part of our history, there is the challenge of not yet having arrived at a society where everyone has that opportunity or the sense of respect and dignity they need to have. So the various elements of this particular

section deal with aspects of that and try to encompass a variety of ways in which we can express that policy and then put it into our actions. I note particularly sections 3(

g) and (e), the right of people to be treated with dignity and in a culturally sensitive way. You've commented on the issue of violence and discrimination and the need for us to be aware of mitigating against those kinds of actions and feelings in our society.

Policy statements are in fact our best expression of the goals of society. They are in many ways a direction we seek to follow -- and I know this is something that's very important to you because of the work you've done in the multicultural community -- as we look at our education, training and settlement programs and

[ Page 8658 ]

economic opportunities in the regions; and at the work of people in building communities and in the sharing and understanding that the richness of the cultures people bring to those communities provides opportunities for business and culture and for people to know more about the global community in which they live. We can examine all of these in infinite detail. But in this first multiculturalism bill, I believe that we have a statement of a broad range of issues that we know we want to tackle across our ministries and in our communities.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with anything the minister has just said. I guess I do have some concern that this policy statement is going to be the law of the province, for this government and future governments. We are essentially enacting a policy statement into legislation. If this was just a goal of government, that would be one thing; but it isn't. It's going to be the law of the province, and it will govern this government and subsequent governments. So this is a bit more than just a policy statement, as it is worded. Had I been drafting this bill, multiculturalism might have been better defined in a

definitions,

interpretation or purposes

section of the bill, rather than as a

section of a statute that is going to be binding on government. But we could differ on that, and clearly we do, because the minister has decided to present it this way.

I run into some difficulty, given that these policy statements are going to be enacted into law, with where the opposition and I differ philosophically with the government. I'm not a strong advocate of affirmative action programs, quota systems in hiring or legislating integration. I don't believe that they work for any length of time.

Where I see this going, particularly with reference to

section 7 -- which we'll get to later -- which binds every ministry and every government corporation to this statutory policy.... We're headed in that direction. I guess I have some concerns about whether that's the right thing to do. I understand that multiculturalism reflects the racial and cultural diversity of British Columbians. We should just get down to a simple definition of "culture" -- a difficult one at the best of times. Perhaps I should use myself as an example. My family is fifth-generation Canadian. I'm third-generation Vancouver born. What does the minister see as my racial and cultural role in this multicultural community? How am I defined?

Hon. A. Hagen: Like all of us, hon. member, you have a cultural heritage.

From an anthropological or a sociological definition of culture one has to start to put some

definitions down. What I'm asking here, by way of this rather circular question, is at what point is a Canadian a Canadian, regardless of whatever their ethnic backgrounds may be? At what point are we going to say that every individual should be treated equally to every other individual? When are we going to say that we should no longer segregate or define people within statutes on the basis of ethnicity, so-called heritage questions or on the basis of linguistics? When will one law apply to every Canadian or British Columbian equally to every other?

At what point do we stop considering ourselves as hyphenated Canadians, that is as Indo-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians or those kinds of things? At what point do we blend the multicultural fabric into the definition of a Canadian and no longer have those kinds of distinctions made? I think this kind of bill has the danger of perpetuating and not eliminating that?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. member, I've now discovered that you and I have a little bit of common cultural heritage. You learned some of your loquaciousness from the Maritimes five generations back and I learned mine there more recently.

[4:30]

You've defined yourself. Everyone defines himself or herself with respect to their cultural heritage. Before you came into the House, we discussed the perspective that people who are more newly arrived to Canada have about this country. It is a country where their cultural heritage is always valued. It is not something that is lost as newer residents of this land become Canadian citizens and participants in our economy and society. That is something that's fully understood by people from those broad cultural heritages, no matter when they arrived in this country or from whence they came.

At what point, then, if we deal with the question of discrimination -- and this is important....

Section 3(e)

[ Page 8659 ]

says: "reaffirm that violence, hatred...." If we take those two out and just put in "discrimination...." Let's deal with discrimination for the moment: "...on the basis of race, cultural heritage...ancestry...." Now, if we can look at the terms "cultural heritage" and "ancestry or place of origin...." If we talk about discrimination on those bases, I would like to ask the minister if, within the provisions of this bill, those terms would include aboriginal people.

Hon. A. Hagen: There is a recognition, as we look at the diversity of our society, that the first nations, the aboriginal people, are a part of that diversity; but also there's a recognition of a very special place for our first nations as the citizens of this land over many, many, many, many, many eons. The other citizens who have come to this land in the more recent history, since the arrival of settlers from Europe, are a part of the broader diversity that has made up the Canada that we now know.

G. Wilson: I recognize the definition that is provided under the fiduciary obligation statutes of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act, which in my judgment is a racist piece of legislation and one that should be taken out of the statutes of this country. Having stated that, I hear that the minister is saying that there is a special status, a special place, for aboriginal people based on many, many, many, many, many.... I think there were five manys. I'm not sure; Hansard will determine that. How many "manys" do we come to, given that I -- and I come back to myself again...?

How can I be anything other than indigenous Canadian? I don't mean that in any way to belittle or to try and undermine the first nations people. But having been born here, my father born here, my grandfather born here and two generations before that, to be then considered anything other than a national Canadian and therefore having stature.... What I am concerned about is that we're defining a Canadian in here as an immigrant with seniority; seniority rights will apply. What we are attempting to do is to make seniority rights out of this, with one exception: first nations people.

Can the minister tell us, notwithstanding the definition of first nations people under the federal statutes, of which I am well aware, why, under subsection (e), "discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage...ancestry" would not apply to first nations people, given that there are many people, myself included, who -- granted, only five generations have been born in Canada, but that's not my fault -- have absolutely no affiliation -- nor could they have; my son is a sixth-generation Canadian -- with any nation other than Canada?

At what point is the distinction on the basis of cultural heritage, ancestry or race accepted? If it's accepted in principle with respect to first nations, how can it not be accepted in principle on any other basis? It's a very important philosophical question, because the legal rights of people are going to be affected under legislation that may come forward with respect to government and government authority to first nations.

Hon. A. Hagen: I am speaking of history. The history of our land is the history of its peoples. It's a history that has diversity among its peoples, and I spoke about that a moment ago. The cultural heritage and the ancestry of people are a part of each person's identity. The member has spoken about it. I am learning about the number of generations of his family's association with this land. I've learned a little bit about where his family has lived in the country; all of those things are a part his personal history. We are speaking about the history of our land and the diversity of the peoples that make up the land.

G. Wilson: With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question. This says that it's the policy of government that there should be no discrimination in British Columbia on the basis of race, cultural heritage or ancestry. I am hearing the minister say that that applies to all except the first nations. If there is no discrimination, maybe the minister could explain. Notwithstanding the fact that statutory obligations fall under the fiduciary responsibilities assigned to the federal government within first nations' policies of this government, it would seem that distinctions are made.

Hon. A. Hagen: I want to be very clear that we are dealing with the peoples of our land. We are saying that as a society our policy is that people will have the opportunity to live and work in our communities without hatred, violence or discrimination. I could go back in my own personal history to a time when there was much more discrimination on the basis of religion than there is at the present time. We are an evolving society, and our laws and working relationships are evolving across a number of fronts.

In this statute we are dealing with the diversity of the peoples of British Columbia, and we are recognizing that opportunity in our policy and goals. Full and free participation of people within our society are goals that we will be working towards in a wide variety of ways, in a wide variety of governments and communities and indeed on the broader private and public sector activities.

G. Wilson: With respect to discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage or ancestry, in light of a first nation acquiring self-government -- and let's use the case of the Sechelts, so that this isn't totally hypothetical; people who live on land under the jurisdiction of the Sechelt Indian government district, who will pay tax on the basis of their residency on that land -- I wonder if the minister could tell us whether in her opinion they should have the right to seek elected office within the Sechelt Indian government district.

Should they have the right to cast a vote, given that there is going to be no discrimination in this act on the basis of race, cultural heritage or ancestry?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, the member is seeking information about other statutes, ranging very broadly in terms of the

section of the bill that we are dealing with, which is a statement of government policy regarding the participation of people in society. The participation of people in society is governed by the

[ Page 8660 ]

laws of the land. I think it's beyond the purview of this bill to examine all of those laws and statutes that exist as part of the work of either this Legislature or our federal government.

G. Wilson: I was listening very carefully to that, because I am trying to tread very carefully into what is an extremely sensitive area. I am not trying to create an issue that isn't already there. There is an issue that has to do with the question of discrimination. I note that in

section 3, which is the multicultural policy of this government....

As we look at this entire bill, it is interesting to note that the word "equality" doesn't exist. Nowhere in this bill is it the policy of this government to make sure that there is equality among people. What we're looking at is full and free participation. We're talking about harmony. We're talking about matters that, regardless of race, cultural heritage, ethnicity and so on, are shared in economic, social, cultural and political life. All those things are there. We're talking about being free from forms of racism, and there's going to be no discrimination based on race, cultural heritage and so on. These are all in

section 3 of this bill. In subsection (

g) and (h), it says: "recognize the inherent right of each British Columbian, regardless of race...to be treated with dignity, and generally, carry on government services and programs in a manner that is sensitive and responsive...."

But nowhere does it say that the policy of this government is to treat each British Columbian equally. That gives me a lot of concern. If it isn't there, it seems to me that that isn't the general policy and philosophy. It tells me that what we are looking at is a collective interest and a collective right that can be defined in a manner that will subjugate individual rights. Maybe that's the government's policy; if it is, fair enough. We can debate that, and we can disagree politically and intellectually.

I have concerns about that around the question of discrimination. With all due respect, the Sechelt Indian government.... I use this as an example not because I'm trying to take issue with them, I applaud them for what they've done. I think that they've put in place an Indian government district that's doing exceptionally well for their people for the most part, and it's working extremely well with municipal governments that neighbour it. I don't take issue with them at all.

I'm dealing with this as a political and intellectual question, which I believe is critically important to future generations if we're going to deal with rising problems associated with distinctions made on the basis of race, culture and ancestry.

Under the Municipal Act that this government has statutory rights to, the Sechelt Indian government district was founded in conjunction with amendments to federal statutes. This government has authority within its jurisdiction with respect to that Indian government district. My question is: should somebody who is not considered a "Sechelt," but who lives on land under the jurisdiction of the Sechelt Indian government district and is subject to taxation from that administration, have the right to run for office and vote, in light of the policy before us described in

section 3?

Hon. A. Hagen: The policy that we're dealing with, hon. member, is a broad policy of government. You are asking questions about the Municipal Affairs ministry and statutes established under that ministry. I think you're taking us into broader realms that are not within the purview of this debate.

G. Wilson: I don't want to jump ahead, but with all due respect,

section 7 says:

"Every ministry and every government corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act must, on or before May 31 of each year, submit an annual report to the minister setting out the initiatives that it has undertaken in the period for which the report is prepared to promote the policies referred to in

section 3."

The policies in

section 3 say that there must be no discrimination on the basis of race, cultural heritage or ancestry. So the Minister of Municipal Affairs is presumably going to need some detailed description as to whether or not that provision is there.

[4:45]

I would say that, historically, society's refusal to allow women to cast a ballot was wrong, and we changed it. If people were aboriginal, this society refused them the right to cast a ballot. That was wrong, and we've changed it. Under this policy, should an individual have the right to cast a vote or to run for office when that individual lives on land and is subject to taxation within a jurisdiction constituted under the laws of British Columbia in conjunction with the laws of the federal government?

Hon. A. Hagen: These policies are subject to the statutes of the land. I'm not familiar with the particular issue that the member is speaking about, which deals, I understand, with a statute. This has nothing to do with the kind of statute that relates to particular arrangements made by parties in this regard. I gather he's talking about some statute that governs the municipal status of the Sechelt Indian people. Those are issues that the member may want to raise with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose prerogative it is to interpret that particular statute.

G. Wilson: I can't possibly expect this minister to know all of the various statutes governing all of the jurisdictions. I'm not trying to entrap or somehow trick this minister; I'm just trying to get to the basis of what I think is a rather critical issue, philosophically and fundamentally, here in British Columbia.

The situation at the moment is that any member of the Sechelt Indian band can seek office -- and in fact, some have -- in the municipal council of Sechelt. They have sought office in the regional district. One former chief sat as an elected member of the regional district. Again, hon. Chair, I only use the example of the Sechelt band because it's one that I'm familiar with. I'm not trying to pick on them or say that this is wrong in any way, although philosophically I have serious difficulty with it. An individual who is not a member of the Sechelt Indian band does not have the same right to seek office in the municipal jurisdiction under the Sechelt Indian

[ Page 8661 ]

vernment district. There is inherently a distinction or a difference or, some might argue -- and this is the point I'm getting at -- a discrimination based on membership that is determined by ancestry.

That question is a fundamental one, because this government, notwithstanding the last constitutional round, is currently engaged in the development of potentially a third order of government in this province whose membership will be determined on the basis of the very things that this policy says we must not discriminate on the basis of. That's my point, and I think it's a fundamental one. In this policy, the minister is saying that we mustn't discriminate on the basis of race, cultural heritage or ancestry.

Yet if we move toward the concept of a third order of government with the jurisdictions assigned and applied in the matter of first nations, membership in the first nations is going to be a criterion by which that very discrimination may occur with respect to members in the society in terms of their right to hold elected office or to vote. These are issues that you say are unacceptable.

How does the minister reconcile this within this act, given that this is the law of the land -- or will be if it gets passed? Because it is the law of the land, and given its prescription under

section 7 to every other ministry, how do we reconcile the clear discrepancy between what is being put out here in the framework of broad multicultural policy and what is being advocated in terms of government policy and also the direct negotiation that's underway outside the purview of this government?

Hon. A. Hagen: We are dealing with the broad policies of government. I understand the member's particular interest in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the negotiations that are going on with first nations around self-government, and his interest in the principles that will be part of those negotiations and discussions involving first nations, the two governments and third parties. It's an interesting debate, and one that obviously the member is very devoted to in his line of questioning.

In bringing forward these policies, we are dealing with the broad goals of government, and as we move forward with those broad goals, I'm sure he's going to have much opportunity to debate these issues and very specific matters in reference to the Sechelt band, which have more to do with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I would encourage him to pursue this line of questioning either in this House or in his discussions with them, but we're dealing with broad policies of government around the many initiatives that relate to people being able to fully and freely participate in society. As I'm sure this member would agree, aboriginal people have not had full and free participation up to this time, and we have a heck of a lot of work to do in that regard. If this policy helps, I would be delighted. The work of all ministers of government in their particular portfolios is guided by the broad principles that we're talking about here.

As we look at the aboriginal people, as well as other people, having the opportunity to fully and freely participate.... The member is really trying to go into a detail that is part of a much broader debate. We across this floor agree, I believe, that there's much work to be done, many issues to be resolved, and that we're talking here about goals to be developed, the aspirations of people and their work in communities, particularly in this case. I'm not the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but we're now debating many of those initiatives that are a part of the developmen