1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Railway abandonment. Mr. Hewitt –– 2073

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. D'Arcy

Highway construction in Rossland-Trail. Mr. D'Arcy –– 2075

Hon. Mr. Davis

Bilingualism. Mr. R. Fraser –– 2076

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Campbell

Mr. Lovick

Open Government. Mr. Jones –– 2077

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Presenting Reports –– 2079

Tabling Documents –– 2080

Victoria Foundation Act (Bill PR406). Committee stage. (Mr. Huberts) ––

Third reading

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill PR406).

Committee stage. (Mr. Huberts) –– 2080

Third reading

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Second reading

Mr. De Jong –– 2080

Mr. Williams –– 2080

Mr. De Jong –– 2081

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Committee stage. (Mr. De Jong) ––

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 2082

Ms. Smallwood

Adoption Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 26). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 2084

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Guno

Third reading

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 29). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2089

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 41). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2089 Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 2090

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

RAILWAY ABANDONMENT

MR. HEWITT: I'm speaking today on railway abandonment and its

impact on interior communities. I'd like to preface my remarks by

saying that I recognize, as we all do, the part that railways played in

the developing of Canada, truly making it a land from sea to sea. But

it wasn't just the railways that did that; it was also the part that

was played by governments of Canada, both provincial and federal.

Therefore the people of Canada contributed a great deal to the building

of those rail lines, particularly the free Crown grants that were given

— to the CPR particularly — for railway rights-of-way. Those

rights-of-way allowed them to build their lines, which allowed industry

to open up throughout the provinces of Canada, which allowed for

farming, mining, logging. Following that, of course, other industries

developed. Communities flourished, and freight and passenger service

provided services to those communities and allowed this country and

this province to grow and prosper.

The rail line, Mr. Speaker, was the link to the marketplace. The

first fifty years of this century, the transportation corridor of the

rail line was what made British Columbia and Canada develop as a modem

nation. But times change, and we all recognize that. Highway

development took place; trucking replaced the rail line in many cases;

airlines provided for quick and easy passage for people going to major

communities throughout the country. Some lines became uneconomical and

were abandoned, and rightly so. But the alarm bells have sounded.

Just to give you some idea of what's in store for us, an

article in the Vancouver Province

in May 1986 stated that CP Rail wants to abandon nearly 47 percent of

its network, cutting out 11,265 kilometres, or 7,000 miles, of the

24,139 kilometre right-of-way. Railway president R.S. Allison said

there is an immediate need to surrender 3,200 to 4,800 kilometres of

track. "The rest we can tackle in an evolutionary rather than a

revolutionary way." The CN vice-president stated that CN would like to

scrap 16,000 kilometres — or approximately 10,000 miles — of branch

line over a ten-year period. That's Canada-wide, Mr. Speaker.

No one can argue with the abandonment of uneconomical lines, but there are

two questions that beg to be asked. First, are the branch lines uneconomical,

or do the railway companies make them that way? Secondly, what happens to the

railway right-of-way when the line is abandoned? Should we allow it to be sold

by the real estate branch of the railway company — in many cases, the land that

they acquired was given to them free and for use as a railway right-of-way —

or should that property revert to the Crown? I'd like to deal with the southern

interior of British Columbia, specifically with the CPR. This situation could

apply across Canada. Remember that CP stated they wanted to abandon 47 percent

of their rail network — some 7,000 miles of line.

Let me deal with the first question: are the branch lines

uneconomical or do the railway companies make them that way? In the

past ten years, two railway subdivisions in the southern part of

British Columbia have been abandoned, specifically in my constituency:

the Okanagan Falls-Osoyoos subdivision, a rail line from Penticton to

Osoyoos; and the Carmi subdivision, a rail line from Penticton to

Midway. In the first instance — OK Falls to Osoyoos — the railway line

abandonment impacted on the export of apples to the United States and

eastern Canada. It impacted on the lumber industry in my area. But in

the end, after hearings of the CTC, the line was proved to be

uneconomical. Now trucks move products to the United States and eastern

Canada.

The second story, the Carmi railway subdivision — that's the line

between Penticton and Midway — is an interesting one. Let me read a

letter from the mayor of the village of Midway on this matter:

"Our concerns go back a few years when, in early March

of 1975, the council of the village of Midway forwarded letters to the

Canadian Transport Commission and to our MP, Mr. George Whittaker. It

was the consensus of council that CP Rail had allowed not only its

service on the Carmi subdivision but the rail line itself to

deteriorate to such an extent that CP Rail would very likely be

applying for abandonment.

"On March 17, 1975, the Canadian Transport Commission

advised that they did not have an application from CP Rail for the

abandonment of the Carmi. However, they would request a submission from

CP Rail on the allegation. This submission from CP Rail naturally

showed the company was losing money" — on that specific line. "The

council was proved to be correct. On September 21, 1976, one and a half

years after our original letter, CP Rail applied to the Canadian

Transport Commission for abandonment of this line."

In the end, the line was closed due to the fact that it was

uneconomical. But was it by design? The letter stated, a year and a

half before the application, that service had been reduced and the line

allowed to deteriorate. Today, the next step is being put into motion:

the application for an abandonment of the Castlegar-to-Midway

subdivision, known as the Boundary subdivision. To quote the letter

from the mayor of Midway, Mr. Jim McMynn:

"It would appear once again that perhaps the same type

of situation is taking place, only in a different area. In 1975 we were

stating that the line west of Midway — Carmi subdivision — would be

abandoned. Now we are looking at the possibility of the line from

Midway east being abandoned" — that is, the Boundary subdivision.

"We also note that a large number of new ties have

been dumped along this line, we presume to be used to replace the old

ties. This of course is an ongoing procedure, but seems to be a bit out

of line this year. The CPR used the same method on the Carmi

subdivision, and of course accrued large expenses against the line, but

then salvaged all these ties as soon as they received" the right to

abandon the line.

"CP Rail should not be allowed to let the same

situation happen yet another time. It would appear that the policy of

CP Rail is to increase freight rates, to allow its services to

deteriorate and diminish in

[ Page 2074 ]

quality, and not be able to supply the quantity of freight cars

required by local industry."

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I got carried away with my comment. I'd like to finish after I have had a response.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The member for Boundary-Similkameen asks two searching questions.

One is: are these numerous lines across the country, and

particularly in southern B.C., still economic? I think the answer,

generally speaking, is no.

His second question is: if they are to be abandoned, how should they

be abandoned? I think the simplistic answer, the one which would suit

the majority of British Columbians, is that the right-of-way should

revert to the Crown provincial. It was gifted by the province to these

railways initially on the understanding — indeed, on the commitment —

that they would provide transportation services. Now that they are

determined to discontinue these services, the right-of-way should

revert to the Crown.

More important, from an economic and financial point of view, is

what happens to the lands they have in built-up communities. Some of

those lands which are in part right-of way, part marshalling yards,

part depots and terminal areas should also revert to the Crown. The

Crown could sell off those lands over time, and with the revenue either

provide other services in the province or perhaps rehabilitate, over

time, parts of the rights-of-way for purposes other than rail usage.

[10:15]

Our railways in Canada — this doesn't apply altogether to the CPR,

but it certainly does to the CNR and to B.C. Rail — incurred very large

debts. These debts were eventually shouldered by the people of Canada

and the people of British Columbia. Their capital costs, in other

words, were written off, and they are now operating without having to

pay the interest on very large debts. They simply break even, or

hopefully make money, purely on salaries, wages and fuel being offset

by the rates they charge.

The railways claim that they are having to compete unfairly against

roads maintained by the public purse, and there have been propositions

made by the railways that the right-of way — if it is to revert to the

Crown — be maintained by the Crown. I think that because they were

given the rights-of way, they should maintain them.

But generally speaking, railways aren't competitive within a

500-mile radius of a source of freight and really anywhere in the

country in terms of passenger transport. So I don't doubt that these

branch lines are not economical, but I do question how they should be

wound up. I contend that these rights-of-way and other properties

should revert to the provincial Crown.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very quick, by

necessity. We on this side of the House are very pleased to hear the

first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) opposing his own

government policy on railway abandonment. The federal government in

Ottawa has bills before their chamber that will make it much easier for

the various railway companies to simply walk away from railway

rights-of-way. His government — or at least the Social Credit

government which the transport minister from Seymour represents — is in

favour of those particular proposals and has gone on record.... I am

glad to see that at least one member of the Social Credit Party is

opposed to the Social Credit government policy in that regard.

I want to quickly say that the remnants of the Kettle Valley

Railway, the line that the member for Boundary-Similkameen talks about

in particular — at least half of it — is in my riding, although the

shippers and receivers are fundamentally in the Boundary country. The

fact is that the CPR made a deliberate decision in 1959 to not keep the

Coquihalla open.

In 1960 they made a deliberate decision to no longer make shipments

from the West Kootenay and Boundary — whether it was forest products or

mining products — directly to or from Vancouver, but rather to send

them all east through Cranbrook and Golden, over the Rogers Pass and

out to the coast that way. That allowed them to say that there is no

traffic on the Kettle Valley, because after all, there wasn't. It was

all going around the horn instead of taking a direct route. It also

resulted in increased freight rates for every single shipper and every

single industry, including the fruit industry, in the southern interior.

This is just the end of it, from their point of view. The CPR's

action over the last 30 years has been to deliberately set the stage

for abandonment of all of their rail lines in the southern interior of

British Columbia, and governments of this province — your government

and, I have to say, even the brief period of New Democratic government

— have stood by and let this happen, along with the various federal

administrations, which even you, Mr. Speaker, were part of at one time.

It is a tragedy, but we're only in the last act of that tragedy right

now.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the

member for Rossland-Trail. But the thrust of my statement is simply

this: the government of British Columbia must adopt a policy to monitor

and comment on any application before the CTC, to ensure that the

abandonment of any line in British Columbia, whether it is in the

southern interior or anywhere else, is justified, not contrived. As the

member for Rossland-Trail says, it is a strategy that has been in place

for a number of years. I am saying that British Columbia and other

provincial governments across Canada should make sure they have a

statement to be made before the CTC; otherwise we are reneging on our

duty.

Mr. Speaker, we get only one more chance to preserve these

corridors. The government cannot allow these railways that are

abandoned to be left to the discretion of the CPR or the CNR. Action is

required now. There should be legislation or a contractual agreement

between the province and federal government, if necessary; or

acquisition of the abandoned railway, if justified, should take place.

We should acquire it from the railways by legislation if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I just say this: we're talking about 47 percent

of the national lines in Canada — the CP network and some 10,000 kilometres

of CN. We're not just talking about the southern interior., British Columbia

could take a leadership role in Canada to protect this provincial and national

asset. I ask the government to make this issue a top priority in the coming

years — and I say years. Firstly, the government policy should be to investigate

and intervene, where justified, in any application for abandonment of any rail

line in British Columbia or in any other province in

[ Page 2075 ]

Canada. Secondly, where the railway abandonment is

allowed, the right-of-way should revert to the Crown, because the

people of the province and of the country gave the railway these

rights-of-ways to move people and goods across Canada.

With that, I know I'm in agreement with the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) ; he agrees on that

concept. I think we disagree somewhat on what's economical and what

isn't, because I know in my area the Carmi subdivision was allowed to

deteriorate, service was restricted, and in the end the line was lost.

The same thing is happening in the Boundary subdivision right now. We

know it; the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and I know it.

This is a major issue, not just in the sense of that one small

subdivision, but for Canada, for the farmer on the prairie and for the

people in other provinces. I think British Columbia could have a major

leadership role in this country in making sure that the rail lines are

aware that provincial governments are watching them.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ROSSLAND-TRAIL

MR. D'ARCY: I certainly enjoyed the warm-up. We're going to go from railways to highways.

One of the things I want to speak about is the longstanding thorn in

our sides in my constituency, and that is the project that the Highways

ministry has dubbed the West Trail approach.

Between 1965 and 1975, 19 out of the 20 miles of the Trail-Castlegar

highway were completely rebuilt, from a 1930s and 1940s standard

highway up to a 60-mile-an-hour modem highway. But the worst segment of

that highway, the busiest segment and the most dangerous from the point

of view of truck and rail traffic — because of its proximity to

industry — was left untouched. For the last 12 years, we have received

a succession of promises, commitments and studies from various

Ministers of Highways and Premiers of this province that something was

going to happen about this.

Just before I go on, I have to say that there has been other major

construction in the constituency in that same period: the

Kinnaird-Meadows highway, a brand new highway, was completely built;

and there's been major construction from Trail to Montrose. So it's not

as though the constituency has been neglected by the Highways ministry,

but there is this particularly dangerous mile of highway — and, I might

say, a very expensive piece of highway — which has still hardly been

touched. In spite of the fact that just last summer and fall.... We all

know that politicians, especially if they are running for office

provincially, are wont to make major promises. Some major promises were

made, commitments by the Social Credit candidates who traveled through

the constituency, which I was very glad to hear. Those promises were

made, and it was even said that it wouldn't matter how the election

went — there was a commitment to proceed with this.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing has happened, and practically a year

has passed. I want to state quite clearly that we're not just talking

about a highway. This goes back to what we were just talking about:

actually there are five railway crossings, highly dangerous ones, that

we want to avoid in the constituency. We don't want to remove the

tracks; we simply want to have a road that goes around the tracks.

We also want to facilitate the modernization of industry within the

area. There's no question about that. If the road is on another

location, it will facilitate the use of the area for industry, which is

what it was originally used for in any event, Mr. Speaker.

There is also a major feeder route, the Trail to Warfield route,

which would also be bypassed by the West Trail approach and replaced. I

think we need to point out to the House that this is also an extremely

dangerous piece of highway, to the extent that it not only has hairpins

and very steep grades, but a runaway. We all know that runaway vehicles

do occur, unfortunately, from time to time in British Columbia, and

when that occurs, some major steam and acid lines supplying the

fertilizer plants in Warfield are endangered. Naturally, the community

at large would be endangered by a collision on this particular stretch

of highway.

We're rather protective of our fertilizer and pollution control

plants right now because of fertilizer plant shutdowns in Kimberley,

Calgary and Spokane by the company that Cominco Ltd. operates in Trail.

The Highways minister is not in the House today, but I want to

impress upon him — I hope he reads the Blues — that I think the

constituency I represent, the people of the city of Trail in

particular, have been very patient. They have trusted politicians, and

they have believed it when they have been told that something is going

to be done about this particularly dangerous and low-quality stretch of

highway, albeit one that is somewhat expensive to repair. Hopefully,

they will be listening.

The second thing I want to talk about is a lesser point. In the

northern part of the riding, there is a road called the Pass Creek

Road, on which we have received constant commitments from various

ministers of Highways and regional spokesmen for the Highways ministry.

It was going to be modernized and improved. This has gone back over a

great many years, and yet nothing has happened. We are getting

impatient with the Ministry of Highways — both at the regional and

provincial level — and demanding now that some action be taken.

I see the green light is on, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I hope the

Minister of Highways and the Treasury Board are listening and will pay

some attention to these particular projects, which are way overdue and

certainly a threat to the safety of the people who use these roads.

HON. MR. DAVIS: First, I'll certainly draw the submission of

the hon. member for Rossland-Trail to the attention of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). I agree with him, and I

know the minister would also agree that considerable work is needed on

the western approach to Trail from Rossland, and also that the changes

necessary are quite expensive, because some of them involve the

movement of utilities and involve built-up areas.

I have some notes here which indicate the progress of work to date

and the cost of those works which remain to be done. I see from the

notes that the railway underpass excavation is complete, the pipe

bridge underpass is complete, the CP Rail underpass is complete, and

the railway has been relocated. There is some $7.5 million worth of

further work required. Work on one item is to begin this summer. It is

to relocate the Trail Creek culvert, and that is to be done on a

cost-sharing basis with the city of Trail. That's a $2.5 million item.

[ Page 2076 ]

Relocation of utility lines will be done by Cominco at the cost of

$1.3 million to the provincial ministry; retaining walls, miscellaneous

locations, $300,000; relocate utilities north of the underpass, $1.2

million; grading, curb and gutter paving, a further $2.2 million.

So there's a lot left to be done; it's expensive. A start will be

made this summer. I don't have any indication as to when all these

works will be completed, but I assume that the ministry, now having

made a substantial investment in this west highway approach to Trail,

will continue to finish those works so that the public can really take

advantage of them.

[10:30]

The hon. member referred to the problem of runaway trucks on the

Rossland-Trail highway, 3B, to Warfield. A brake-check stop will be

installed at the top of the hill just outside Rossland to give vehicle

drivers a further opportunity to check the condition of their

equipment, and a preliminary design is being completed of a new type of

runaway lane to be constructed alongside the downhill shoulder. This

will have the advantage of stopping trucks without their having to

cross opposing traffic to get to the present uphill runaway lanes.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm encouraged, and so will my

constituents be encouraged, by the sincerity and directness of the

statements of the minister who is speaking on behalf of the Highways

minister.

One of the difficulties that we all have, though, Mr. Speaker, is

that we have been receiving these kinds of assurances and statements of

good intentions from government spokesman for a number of years. All of

the work, in fact, that the minister referred to was completed in

1979-80. That was the first third, and that's now seven years ago. We

haven't seen any activity since that time.

The minister says there was property to be acquired; that was all

acquired back in 1979-80. Indeed, a great many people were moved out of

their homes. A residential neighbourhood and some businesses were

completely levelled, and the flavour of part of the community was

changed. Yet no visible construction has taken place.

The minister has described the second third of the project, and —

fair enough — he said he couldn't speak for sure about the third third.

But I'm very encouraged that this work is to go ahead, or start at

least, in conjunction with the city of Trail. The city, I might say, is

very earnest and ready to proceed. We're sensitive in Trail about the

Trail Creek culvert. The minister may remember the disaster of 1969 — I

have to get my years straight, but I think it was 1969. Certainly, ever

since that time, some major work has needed to be done to expand the

capacity of that particular culvert to avoid a similar occurrence, in

future decades.

So I'm encouraged by what the minister has said. We're all a little

bit like Harry Truman, though, in this — we're going to believe it when

we see it. But I want to thank the minister nonetheless for his

directness in responding.

BILINGUALISM

MR. R. FRASER: Bonjour mes amis. Mr. Speaker, that is about the pitiful

level of French spoken by people in British Columbia, including myself, so I

make no criticism of other members in that respect. But the reason I want to

talk about bilingualism is that we are a bilingual country officially, and in

spite of the fact that there are people around who think the war was won on

the plains of Abraham and that there should therefore be only one language, we

are official. We did welcome the French people and the French language, and

we have maintained it. Now we have an Official Languages Act which is, slowly

but surely, taking place across the country.

While we would talk with those who say we should be speaking

Japanese and Chinese — indeed, one of the members opposite introduced a

language bill yesterday — the fact is I would encourage people here to

speak the language of our commercial customers, if we wish to do it

that way. But the fact remains that we in the west, if we fail to pick

up on the thrust of language training, will be the ultimate longtime

losers, and I think the evidence is already coming that way.

I've had these feelings for some time, Mr. Speaker, but what really

brought it home to me was a meeting I was at recently in Montreal, a

conference celebrating the centennial of engineering organizations in

Canada. Although engineering's been here much longer than that, it was

the celebration of 100 years of engineering organizations. Many of the

documents were exclusively in French. Those of us who speak only one

language found ourselves at a significant disadvantage when looking at

other people at the conference who were fluent in both languages and

who evidently from the very beginning of their education had spoken in

two.

For the reasons that we see shown in the records, we note, for

example, that there are numbers of federal government jobs that demand

bilingualism, and we understand that many of those jobs are filled by

people who do not speak both official languages well enough to really

communicate. But the fact is that if we look at some of the trends,

even in the province of Quebec, we see.... For example, the number of

Anglophones in the administration of the province of Quebec is going

down. If we look at the federal civil service, we note that in order to

get a senior federal service job, you have to speak French. We note

that the Speaker of the House, who is from Vancouver South, and who I

can assure you is a long-time friend of mine — and of yours as well,

Mr. Speaker — was raised in Vancouver, speaking very little French

except that which was required in high school, and probably only one

year at university. He now, as we see, is, or is becoming, fluently

bilingual, which should be a very strong indicator to all of us that

there really is not time left. If we are going to be a full player on

the federal scene, we have to play with everything, and that means both

languages.

For example, the federal minister yesterday introduced a bill to

revamp the Official Languages Act, so these comments are timely. There

are only three provinces left which after this year will not have

French in the judicial system, one of them being British Columbia. So

we are going to be out of it, and that is not reasonable. Apart from

this fact, which is nice to reiterate, if we agree that we have a

problem we have to think about what we're going to do. In the school

system, some school boards have, in the words of some parents,"tried to

jam French down our throats," or "force French upon the children."

There is a court case in Sooke right now — which is in the paper again

this very morning — where some parents are asking for something, and

we're not sure what will happen in the court system. But instead of

pushing the system down, as is seen by many parents, I think we have to

create in the minds of parents that their children will be the losers

if we don't speak both official languages — and indeed many more, for

that matter — and they will then ask the school boards to deliver

education in both languages. This is not going to be cheap. My

understanding is that right now we

[ Page

2077 ]

spend about $10 million in B.C. every year, and it disappears quite quickly, as we can see.

I don't want to give the impression that we must be bilingual or

that we will force it down people's throats; I want it to be understood

and sought and requested. That's the way we'll be full players in

federalism, and that's the way we'll be full players in Canada. That is

why we should create, in the minds of every citizen of British

Columbia, the knowledge that more opportunity exists if we treat

French-language training as a mind-expanding opportunity. That is the

thrust of my presentation this morning.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think you've said a word that I disagree

with. I think bilingualism is an important idea. It's an important

cultural approach to things and can mean far more to someone who is

bilingual than a simple issue of talking to somebody in their own

language. It goes far beyond that.

We definitely were established as a bilingual country, and anybody

who reads the British North America Act knows that that is true. That's

for very good reasons, which I certainly won't go into

chapter and

verse; I do have an expert to whom I could refer you, if anybody needs

to know.

The point is, as a teacher of language myself on occasion, I'm

sometimes amazed at the lack of knowledge that young students have

about language, about image, about the use of language and those kinds

of things. If you're going to learn vocabulary, syntax and grammar,

language in our educational system, but you may learn them if in fact

you learn another language. It almost comes out of some mouths as a

foreign language. French is not a foreign language, and I think you

made that very clear, too. I think on every count — not just the

cultural count, but also in the trade and commercial areas that you've

talked about — it's very important that we talk about having our

children learn two languages, whether or not they have two languages in

the home.

What's happening is that there has been a whole lot of encouragement

from parents these days. You were talking about wanting to have people

understand, seek and request French language in the schools, and that

seems to be happening. It's happening, I think, throughout the whole

part of the province. Unfortunately, right now there's a lot of going

back and forth, not only because of costs but partly because we don't

have the qualified people who could teach, primary necessarily, or

whatever's happening. I think we have to give all the help that we can

to this resource. I want to get to a point where, when we say something

like "au courant," everybody doesn't think we're talking about currant

wine.

I would like to end now. I want to give an opportunity to my

colleague, who may be able to say a few words in French a little better

than I would, and perhaps even improve on your initial words.

MS. CAMPBELL: I'd like to take the opportunity to address

this subject as well. I can speak French, but I would like to be

understood in the House, so I will refrain.

I just want to add to the comments of my colleague from Vancouver

South. One of the themes that has been discussed at some length in this

government and in this House recently is the theme of estrangement of

British Columbia from central Canada and the frustration of British

Columbia — in terms of both its government and its people — with the

failure of central Canada and particularly the federal government

to understand what British Columbia is about, to understand our

potential, to understand what kind of people we are.

Political scientists identify two distinct political cultures in

Canada, one being Quebec and one being British Columbia. We've had

discussions this morning about transport and the failure of transport

policies to reflect British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, I served as a

chairman of the Vancouver School Board, and I have been a very strong

advocate of French immersion. Just very briefly, in order to allow

somebody else to make one more comment on this subject, I want to say

that when I support French immersion and when I have supported French

programs throughout our schools, I have made the single point: that we

will never take our place fully in Confederation until the federal

civil service is full of bilingual British Columbians.

MR. LOVICK: Monsieur president, je voudrais parler en

franqais pour quelquefois, et les raisons sont symboliques. D'abord,

f6licitations an deput6 de Vancouver-Sud. Il a soulign6 le principe

tr~s important pour tous canadiens, le principe d'6galit6 entre les

deux peuples fondateurs du Canada, et c'est tr~s important en

Colombie-Britannique.

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that I want to congratulate the member

opposite for his comments, because it seems to me he has emphasized and

expressed a fundamental principle about Canadian society which we too

often forget, namely the principle as enunciated in the Royal

Commission on Bilingualism and Culture: the principle of equality

between the two founding peoples of our country. I thank the member for

his comments. I think all of us can indeed appreciate the wisdom of

those comments.

[10:45]

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that we've had

French spoken in this chamber today; indeed we've had it before. I

would say, with the wisdom of the Speaker we had previous to your fine

service, sir, and to the members of the House, that it was accepted

without comment, which is not the occasion of every other province.

I'm glad to see that there's a lot of harmony in this House, because

if there is harmony here on a useful subject that is, in my view, an

imperative for our province as a player, then indeed it will be seen, I

hope, in our constituency reports and in our opportunities to transmit

our thoughts and ideas to our B.C. electors. The message will go again

and again, until finally, as everybody on this side and the other side

has said, there is a recognition that we cannot be full players in

federal Canada unless we speak both languages. I thank the members

opposite for the support they have given to the subject — not to me,

but to the subject — and I hope that it will encourage a speedier

development of bilingualism in British Columbia.

OPEN GOVERNMENT

MR. JONES: Legislatures like this and our system of

government were established to challenge the divine right of kings.

Some cynics would say that little has changed since hat day, because

today we have the divine right of cabinet, and in some instances the

divine right of Premiers, and that we have a dictatorship between

elections.

I think we know better than that, Mr. Speaker; we have a

representative democracy and good representation. But I think we can do

much better than that. We have the ability to do better and, in fact,

we have the responsibility to do better,

[ Page 2078 ]

in terms of developing a better system of government, a more open government.

The throne speech introduced last March had at least a dozen items

that spoke to open government. We must assume in that instance that the

government has a real commitment to open government, and this is a good

thing. We have certainly seen some indicators of movement in this

direction; and this side of the House has certainly supported those

things.

I would like to raise one of the items mentioned in the throne

speech. It's listed as a priority item, and I quote: "As a priority, my

government will expand the number and roles Of the all-party committees

of this assembly and will ask the members to become more involved in

the business of our parliament." I don't think I've been asked, Mr.

Speaker. I think that's an excellent statement in the throne speech,

and I think we're still waiting on this side of the House. We want to

establish real working committees in this Legislature to deal with the

critical issues of the times, like the unemployment problem in this

province, which we suggested to the government.

We want to see all committees of this Legislature, particularly the

Public Accounts Committee and several others, have the time and the

staff to do the job that they have the responsibility to do — in the

case of the Public Accounts Committee, to accurately monitor the

spending of government. We should also restore another old committee,

the committee that dealt with Crown corporations — an excellent

committee.

We should have commissions that are going around this province, like

the Sullivan commission and the Fisher commission and other bodies. The

ombudsman's report could be dealt with by an all-party committee

dealing with public reports that come from those bodies to all-party

committees of this Legislature.

Another area in which we can move to open government is in the area of technology.

Certainly today we have all kinds of technology that can bring people closer

to government and the government closer to people. One of those was mentioned

in the throne speech, and I quote again: "And since government's business

is everybody's business, my government will act to provide coverage of the

Legislature on television and radio by late fall." That was a promise in

the throne speech. Because this is the people's business conducted here,

the people want to know how their representatives operate in this chamber. They

want to know, and they don't accept any excuses of cost. Certainly the cost

hasn't changed since March 10, Mr. Speaker.

Another area is that the government should proclaim the Financial

Information Act. This was

an act that required detailed disclosure by

boards, agencies and Crown corporations, and it's my understanding that

that was passed in 1985 and never proclaimed. Another area that was

mentioned the other day was that we establish — some kind of

legislative agenda so that the government, the opposition and the

people of this province can have some idea of the order of business

that's going to be conducted in this chamber — the people's business —

and so that they know, and, if they want to come here and observe, they

can have some rough idea of when to appear.

The final item that I would like to mention, and the most important

item, is that this parliament pass freedom of information legislation.

This is legislation that would guarantee the right of the public to

know the role and policy of government, to know the information on

which decisions of government are based, decisions made on behalf of

the public, so that they can evaluate the wisdom of those decisions.

How many times have we seen the desire expressed for this kind of

thing? No more than a couple of. days ago, the second member for

Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) asked, in terms of the Board of Internal

Economy, how the public is going to see how its money is spent by this

board. Where is the accountability?

The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) in the Bill 19 discussion mentioned

the Industrial Relations Council and their information-gathering in

terms of negotiations in this province. How is the public going to

become aware of those pieces of information? The second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has recently been asking for information on

tendering practices of this government. This is public information, and

the public does have the right to know information that affects their

health, safety and economic well-being.

They also have the right to know poll results that they pay for.

This was promised at one point in the last election, and we haven't

seen any of that. The public want to know. They have the right to know.

The ombudsman has pointed this out; the federal government and other

provinces in this country have such legislation. Now is not the time to

be lagging behind other provinces or to be dragging our feet on this

issue.

We need freedom of information legislation, we need a legislative

agenda, we need improved technology to bring government and people

closer together, and we need an improved committee system in this

House. Now is the time to move boldly on these initiatives to move

towards real open government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To reply to the hon. member for Burnaby

North, I first came into this chamber in 1975-76, not as long ago as

some other members. I've seen a tremendous evolution in the openness of

government, and by and large it's been for the better. I've also seen

an evolution in the role of committees in this House, and at this point

I must commend the hon. second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari) for the way she's handling the public accounts committee. I

don't always agree with her, but I'm saying there's been less rancour

and it's been a better committee than we've ever had. The reason for

that committee's evolving and doing a better job is attitude. You can

have things whatever way you want in this House; you can have things

work in committees whatever way you want. If you want to go there and

spend all of your time being overtly political, then nothing will get

done. I must say, to the great commendation of the present chairman and

members of that committee, that it hasn't been the style of that

committee, and we can look forward to great things emanating from it.

There are two parts to this Legislature, though, hon. member. What

you have is a legislative branch of which we are all a part, under our

system, and we have the executive branch of government. The executive

branch is not unlike the executive in any organization. It is there to

do just that: to carry out the executive functions, to run the

day-to-day affairs of government. That is not the job of the

Legislature as a whole; under our system, that is the job of ministers

or representatives of the Crown.

Under the British system, which we have adopted here, one has to be very careful that we don't move too far towards

[ Page 2079 ]

that republican system of government in the States,

where everything is committeed to death and where they have committees

upon committees, spending millions upon millions of dollars for

bureaucracies that really labour and bring forth nothing. We have every

right, and indeed you have every opportunity in this Legislature during

question period, as a representative of your particular public, to ask

questions of ministers and to have those questions answered and to

bring out that information.

We talk about television and radio. There is a tremendous expense

involved in putting television into this chamber without disturbing its

integrity — a very different system than in Saskatchewan, where you

have a cable system that runs throughout the province and it's very

easy to hook into it. Here we need uplinks to satellites and all those

things. I believe the government is still committed to looking at the

television situation to bring it forward. But government has no funding

of its own in these times when we hear many complaints from my

colleagues across the floor about what government ought to be doing

with its funds and how it ought to be deploying the money available to

it. I would wonder how kindly the public of British Columbia would look

on us right now in spending millions upon millions of dollars to put

television into the chamber at this time.

There are other ways of doing it. I believe you have a Board of

Internal Economy which will be open to the government and which can

be.... Vote 1 is always available, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to look at

during estimates and to lay those facts bare before the Legislature.

The fact that it's not done is certainly.... It's up to the members to

examine any vote of this Legislature. You do have a Board of Internal

Economy which can deal with television, radio and any of the things

included in the way we operate this House. I think that has been a move

in the correct direction, and the board in its embryonic stages has

been working very well. I agree with you that as much information as

possible ought to be made available. There are times, though, my

friend, when things must be handled in the executive fashion. At some

point, of course, that information has to be made available to the

public.

As for polling, we're doing very little if any polling in this

government, so that's why you haven't seen any of the results of those

polls.

I want to commend the member and ask him to talk to his members of the Board of Internal Economy on his concerns.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from Burnaby,

the hon. Provincial Secretary, suggests that partisan activity is the

reason the committees haven't been sitting and operating. He knows that

that is not the case. He knows the case is that those committees have

not been given any business by this government, and that's why they

haven't been operating.

He talks about the executive branch as if it were something way

above the people. The executive branch conducts the people's business.

The Provincial Secretary talks about the millions of dollars. I

can't believe that a government would put a statement in the throne

speech when they have not researched the costs of television in this

Legislature. The Provincial Secretary still does not know the costs of

television if he thinks it costs millions and millions. All he has to

do is check with what's happening in other provinces that have such

systems. If it was too much money, then it was too much money on March

10, when we saw the throne speech. It wasn't too much money then, so

it's not too much money now. If it's a priority of government — and

it's important to the people to see their representatives and bring

government into the twentieth century — then I think the money should

be found.

[11:00]

I would like to emphasize freedom-of-information legislation,

because it was an idea that the now-Premier supported in 1982, at least

for municipalities. It was an idea that the former Attorney-General

supported, or at least presented to cabinet in that same year.

Apparently it was dropped because of the restraint program, and I hope

we are moving beyond that.

I would like to comment on another statement made in the throne

speech about crossroads. It indicated that we were at a crossroads, and

that we can walk the traditional path of doubt and distrust, wasting

our energies and time in partisan political strife, or we can step out

together on the new road that leads to a more secure future for all

British Columbians. I think we have made some suggestions along that

road. I believe that freedom-of-information legislation is important,

and I have served notice that I intend to table a private member's bill

on freedom of information. I hope the government will pay attention and

will see fit to consider this kind of legislation.

I expect the government to fulfil its commitment in the throne

speech to implement television in this Legislature, and by the date

indicated in the throne speech. This is the people's business being

conducted here. The people have a right to know, they want to know, and

they want to see how their representatives are representing them.

I also hope that the elected members will be able to function more

effectively by participating in an all-party system that deals with the

real business of the people, and that we do have a legislative

timetable in which to consider the operations of government.

I would suggest that it's time that we do move forward to open

government. Do we take pride in this Legislature and this parliament,

that we will go down in history as the parliament that let the sun

shine in and let fresh air into the business of British Columbians?

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the second member for Vancouver East have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: In our gallery is a constituent of mine, Miss

Rosalind Milner, who is a friend of the hon. member for Atlin (Mr.

Guno). I would like the House to make her welcome.

Presenting Reports

Ms. Campbell presented the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations, which was

taken as read and received.

MS. CAMPBELL: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Approved.

[ Page

2080 ]

MS. CAMPELL: I'd like to express my appreciation for the

courtesy of all of the members of the committee in expediting the

business that was before us.

Ms. Marzari tabled the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was taken as read and received.

MS. MARZARI: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour? Agreed.

MS. MARZARI: I move that the bill be taken as read and received,

Motion approved.

MS. MARZARI: As I sit here today signing documents for the

disposal of years and years of accumulated duplicate records and

records that are no longer useful for government purposes, I must

comment that I have been most impressed, as I read through most of

these documents, by the professional performance of both the records

managements branch and the Provincial Archives of British Columbia. Mr.

Reuben Ware and Mr. John Bovey have done a very fine job indeed, with

their staff, of preparing these documents and preparing their rationale

for disposal or retention. I would like to say this for the record.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move to committee stage on Bills PR402 and PR406.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR402, Victoria Foundation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill PR406, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA FOUNDATION

ACT, 1979 AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill PR406; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR406, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment

Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker.

COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill PR403, as amended

in the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members' Services, now be read a second time.

Just for the information of the members of this House, the Columbia

Bible College has been in existence in the Clearbrook community and has

formed an integral part of the Clearbrook community for the last 25

years. Initially it was a two-year diploma-granting college, and has

operated under that condition for some 20 years. For the last few years

it has been offering a three-year bachelor of religious education

degree, and the basic studies undertaken are biblical studies, church

ministries and missions.

The Columbia Bible College has been, as I said, an integral part of

our community. The students of the college take

part in various

community services to people as well as to the community itself. The

college has candidate status with the American Association of Bible

Colleges; this provides for credit transfers to other bible colleges or

to some universities in North America. The college, which is owned and

operated as a cooperative endeavour between the Mennonite Brethren and

the Conference of Mennonite Churches in British Columbia, does not

discriminate on the basis of denomination, race, colour, sex, national

or ethnic origin in its admission, educational and financial policies.

Because of the high educational standards of the Columbia Bible

College, I urge the House to support this bill, which will provide a

theological degree-granting status to this college.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate on the curriculum at the Columbia Bible College.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we're not in committee yet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The member would close second reading debate if he spoke again. He might want to answer those questions at that time.

[ Page 2081 ]

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly provide a lot more

information at committee stage, but I would prefer not to do it at this

time. I would therefore move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Bill PR403 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered, with leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill PR403, Columbia Bible College Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the member give us some more details on the curriculum at this college?

MR. DE JONG: The Columbia Bible College is providing basic

biblical studies that provide for a practical working knowledge of both

the Old Testament and the New Testament. It also provides for

theological and historical studies which guide into a maturity of

understanding of biblical doctrine and development of Christian

thought, and the practical studies provide the skills for effective

Christian service and ministries. The general studies will help in

acquiring a broadened understanding of human thought, society and

culture, as well as developing skills in different forms of

communication.

[11:15]

MR. ROSE: I was wondering about this college, since it has

been there for a long time. Are there any particular admission

requirements? The member suggested that it is open to everybody

regardless of race, creed and colour. Are there admission requirements

or any kind of pledges that they have to offer in order to gain

admission — a student, for instance?

MR. DE JONG: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. There are no

requirements. As I said earlier, there is no discrimination of any kind

against any type of religion, colour, creed or whatever.

MR. ROSE: If someone, say, were a Sikh or a Jew or a Moslem or an atheist and wished to enroll there, he'd be welcome.

MR. DE JONG: That's what I would read into those general guidelines.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if there are any dress codes or any kind

of political saliva tests you have to pass before you're permitted to

enroll at Columbia. What academic requirements are necessary for

admission?

MR. DE JONG: The basic requirements are for any student

wishing to receive an education. I read those general guidelines just a

minute ago. If someone, as I understand, coming from a different

culture or religion wishes to follow this line of study, he will not be

excluded from the school. He, in fact, will be permitted to follow the

courses.

MS. EDWARDS: I understand that the theological degree can be

granted. Is that after a three-year term of study? If so, as I

understand it, that must be the only three-year degree in British

Columbia. Is that correct?

MR. DE JONG: I can answer the first part of the question. It

is based on the three-year course that's offered by the Columbia Bible

Institute. I'm not aware of whether there are any other colleges in

British Columbia of a three-year nature.

MS. EDWARDS: Does this college articulate with other British Columbia universities and post-secondary institutions.

MR. DE JONG: This college belongs to the American Association

of Bible Colleges, and there are a number of them throughout British

Columbia as well as throughout all North America. Of course, this

degree-granting status would make it that much easier to transfer

students and their credits from one college to another. That's really

the purpose of this request.

MS. EDWARDS: If I understand you correctly, you're saying

that the articulation goes on only among the colleges that are run by

the institute, but there is no articulation with other post-secondary

institutions in the province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's correct.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a couple of questions. I'm wondering if

the member can tell us how this college differs from the theological

college in Vancouver. What are the general principles and direction?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we go on, it's certainly a valid

question, hon. member, but I don't think it falls under

section 3.

However, if the second member for Central Fraser Valley wishes to

answer it at this point, it's quite all right with the Chair.

MR. DE JONG: I have no particular knowledge of the college

that the member is speaking about in Vancouver, so if there is someone

here that does know about the college in Vancouver, we could compare

notes and perhaps you might be able to enlighten me on that.

MR. BLENCOE: Why does the member feel that we need another

college, when we do have a theological college in Vancouver which

serves a broad

section of religious doctrines, etc.?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

[ Page 2082 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I've just asked; it's a reasonable question. Why is there a feeling that this one is necessary?

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Columbia Bible

College, which was known as the Columbia Bible School for a number of

years.... As I said earlier, they have provided a real service not only

to the young people in our community, but to many young people

throughout British Columbia. As they have expanded their college to a

three-year term to provide for degree-granting status, and being

recognized by other Bible colleges throughout North America, I really

don't see any reason why they shouldn't have it. They have a good

student body, they have excellent staff, and it's a highly recognized

college, not only in our community but throughout British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against this?

MR. LOVICK: I don't think anybody on this side of the House

is against, and I'd certainly like to clarify that. I served on the

committee that discussed this bill, and all of us on the committee I

think assumed speedy passage. Nevertheless, some people had questions.

I'm standing to make one point for the record, to clarify. Under

section 3,"Objects," I would like to emphasize that it is indeed not

open to all, and that is as it should be. Rather, take note that it

says: "The objects of the college are to provide Christian training for

people of any race, colour or Christian creed." Not all creeds, but

Christian creed. The discussion that went on some five or ten minutes

ago I think suggested something other than that. So just to clarify,

this is indeed a very particular, specific area of instruction for a

very particular and specific group of people.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I or my colleagues have any difficulty supporting this bill.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved..

MR. DE JONG: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR403, Columbia Bible College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to make a

summary statement, and then we can proceed with the votes for the ministry.

Just more or less in wrapping up, I think the debate that we've had

over the last couple of days has been a very useful one, and a learning

experience, I suspect, for both myself and the minister. I want to make

a couple of comments about some of the things that I learned and some

of the things that, while I was fairly clear on them, it was

interesting to have come out in the debate, and it's worth commenting

on,

I'd like to start with the concept of some words, the way we use

words and how they relate to the Ministry of Environment. We made some

comments about special wastes and the need to deal with that issue

straight on rather than dress it out, the need to acknowledge that

these are hazardous wastes, and very toxic. They're wastes that our

society should be concerned about, and they're not particularly special.

The other phrase is "industrial park." I have come to have a new

appreciation of that phrase. As a community activist, the words

industrial park always intrigued me. Coming from my constituency,

industrial parks meant actual industrial development. I was always

perplexed at the usage of that word, because I didn't particularly, see

any park atmosphere about them.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment and Parks puts another

definition on industrial parks in this province: that is, the multi-use

concept of our parks system and the park reserve areas, which allow

extract resource industries in parks. That makes a rather sad usage of

the words "industrial park," a use that I would suggest is not at all

compatible and makes a bit of a mockery of our parks system as it

presently exists.

I think it's been very clear, through the estimates, the number of

times — at one point I thought I might count the number of times — that

the minister referred to industries and industry's perspective, and the

number of times he actually protected industry's interest in our

discussion and was the spokesperson for industry.

I suggest to the minister that industry is a significant player in

the environment, but I suggest that there is a conflict there, and that

his priorities should be the health and safety of communities and the

preservation of heritage in his particular position and responsibility.

I suggest that his representing and being the spokesperson for industry

is wrong-headed.

On the issue of enforcement and monitoring, while it seems to be, at

this point — unfortunately there hasn't been time to take a look at all

of the information the minister finally presented to the House with

regard to enforcement, variance orders, permits and non-compliance....

It is, however, very clear that the information data base and the

services are still not to the point where they can deal significantly

or in a manageable way with the access of contaminants to the

environment. I believe there is a considerable amount of work that

needs to be done there for the protection of both human health and

community.

I'd like to reinforce my call for data dealing with bioaccumulation

of contaminants in the environment. There is no way we can possibly

have an enforcement or a permitting system in this province that makes

any sense without that kind of data. There is no way that we can deal

with enforcing permits in this province without understanding the level

of saturation of the environment that any increase in the contaminant

will cause.

[ Page 2083 ]

I want to stress the point of access to information for community

groups and the right to know. Not only should the ministry have a

complete data base to draw on, but the communities should have free

access to that data base so they can have confidence in the work of the

ministry and confidence that their interests are being served. At this

point, that data base not only is not available for the ministry, but

any information that is available at times becomes too complicated for

community-based groups to access.

I want to again emphasize — this is a point that we made in the

estimates — the need to minimize costs. While the ministry obviously

needs — and I think it is being reinforced from both sides of the House

— support in the House for the Environment ministry and for the concept

of environment in this province, there is a blatant need for support

for that ministry both in priorities of the government and in budget.

[11:30]

If the minister is saying that he has adequate budget.... I believe

the other comment the minister made was that he, as any other minister,

would not say for a moment that he couldn't use more staff. I want to

make the point that the priorities set by the ministry could deal with

some of the restrictions that the ministry has with funding and

staffing by dealing more with minimizing costs through supporting and

enforcing the concepts of recycling, resource recovery and alternative

usages of hazardous waste in industry. By the use of that kind of

strategy, you would minimize the end result of having to deal with

facilities and having to deal with enforcement and clean-up costs later.

Although the minister has clearly identified that we have different

philosophies and different priorities, I want to mention again the

study that I introduced the debate on, the study done by the World

Commission on Environment and Development named "Our Common Future:

From One Earth to One World," and again make the point that any concept

governing a ministry of environment has to be a broad concept that

deals with our place in the overall environment here in B.C.

I want to emphasize to the minister that the days of development —

leaving nothing more for the memory than names like Eagle Ridge, Osprey

Lookout, Meadow Lake Trail or Bear Creek Park — hopefully are gone. We

need to preserve the actual habitat of those animals instead of naming

industrial areas or subdivisions after the species that once used to

live there.

I want to emphasize, when we're dealing with issues of waste

management, that we no longer can use examples.... I'll use the example

of Bear Creek Park, a beautiful park in the middle of Surrey with a

lovely playing-field. It used to be a garbage dump, and I suspect

that's why the bears were there. Now we're in a situation of the

children of that community playing on that field and coming home with

their soccer uniforms smelling of leachate because it is still

percolating up through the playing-field.

I want to emphasize another point: we can no longer afford the

Ministry of Environment to be the ministry of rebuilding urban

development, restoring natural habitat, rehabilitating wild lands or

reforesting. This ministry has to be perceived as a ministry of

compatible economic development that is sustainable, economic

development that provides long-term jobs and security, and economic

development that does not pass the costs of that development onto

future generations for clean-up and health costs.

With that, I'd like to end the debate of the Ministry of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I promise the committee I won't filibuster

this, but I would like to thank the member for her comments and for the

debate we've had over the past few days. I will address the items she

mentioned.

The concept of the words "special wastes." You're absolutely right,

Madam Member. It may be a euphemism in the act, but we do use the terms

"hazardous" and "toxic," and there is no question that they are. I

guess we could have a semantic discussion — not debate — on that. But

you're absolutely correct, and that terminology is used in the

legislation.

The idea of protecting industry. I guess because of my background in

the area I come from, I do have more knowledge about that particular

sector and the pulp mill industry. Because of that knowledge, I might

have come across as appearing to protect the industry, but I want to

impress upon the committee that my comments were simply to indicate

what improvements industry has made with respect to cleaning up the air

shed and also with respect to what responsibilities I see them having.

Enforcement and monitoring. Yes, we have variance orders, and we are

concerned about containment. That flows into access to information, and

I can assure the member that if at any time she does require

information, please let me know and we'll provide what we can. We want

everyone in the province to know what we're doing, and we want everyone

to know that we're using up-to-date information.

As I indicated last night, — we do have an example in Kitimat of a

community planning process. It's been in place for some time, I would

think, since Kitimat's been around since the early fifties. That's also

a recommendation for Elkford, one which is in our ministry policy, and

which I would encourage.

In terms of budget priorities, the member makes a very good point. I

was pleased to see a pretty good increase in our budget for this year.

I didn't take this particular budget to Treasury Board, so I wasn't

responsible for priorities. But I think maybe it's incumbent upon me

and the deputy, who is also new to this ministry, to have a look at

what our priorities ought to be. Maybe within that set dollar amount,

we can rearrange them if we suspect there's a stronger need for one

vote as opposed to another. Your comments are correct. I guess

priorities would vary from year to year, depending on how you saw

different needs coming to you and how different situations developed,

or what you wanted to prioritize as a personal commitment as a minister.

You are right about the royal commission. We have a broad concept in

place in the world and the planet, and I guess everyone who lives here

and who reads about what we are doing to ourselves has a concern about

how Environment and various ministries and actions by governments will

impact upon the world we're going to have to live in for the

next...whatever.

Just as an aside, let me make a pitch for our province. Probably the

most substantial and significant environmental impact we could have

upon Canada would be to have the province of Ontario buy low-sulphur

B.C. coal, which would greatly reduce, as the member knows, the acid

rain problem in eastern Canada. That is a significant problem. It's

affecting Ontario and also the eastern United States.

[ Page 2084 ]

In terms of waste management, I don't think I'm going to say much

more, because I think we're going to have a good time in another forum,

during committee stage, discussing the whole waste management position.

Let me advise you that from a parliamentary process point of view, when

we get into the Waste Management Amendment Act that's currently before

the House, it allows for complete discussion of the whole act that's

being amended. I have no problem with discussing everything that's

proposed there and the act in its entirety, in the form of the

amendments.

With that said, I'll thank the member for some very interesting and,

as we both agreed, informative debate. We both learned — I certainly

did — and I think that was good. Thank you.

Vote 29 approved on division.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,466,990 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you crossed the floor, you'd get a better seat.

MR. CASHORE: I'm not about to cross the floor so I can get a

better seat. I think I'll stay right here in my small comer — I'm

becoming accustomed to it, and I'm getting to enjoy it.

AN HON. MEMBER: "You in your small comer, and I in mine."

MR. CASHORE: Yes, Jesus bids us shine — I heard that.

I want to be very serious here for a few moments, because it's a

very serious

section that we're discussing. It's the first time in my

experience that I have been in the committee stage of a bill that only

has one section. With regard to this section, I have some questions I

would like to ask the minister that are somewhat reminiscent of some of

my comments yesterday, but they have a greater amount of specificity,

and I would like to be able to deal with those in that way.

I'd like to refer to the fact that in October 1986, the minister

issued a message to the people of British Columbia inviting people to

respond with regard to their thoughts on the issue of an adoption

registry. The minister at that time suggested that there were actually

three options. One would be an active registry; another would be a

passive registry; a third option would be to maintain the status quo. I

would like to ask the minister if he will table the document that

outlines the results of the survey, that was based on the more than

1,000 submissions he referred to yesterday. Will the minister table the

document that came out of that survey for this House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell

me if a document entitled "A Background Paper on the Establishment of

an Adult Adoption Disclosure Registry exists. Does such a document

exist?

[11:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't answer and be absolutely sure of my facts.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if

having taken that question on notice and if discovering that such a

document in fact does exist, will he then table it in this House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have knowledge that this document exists, and I would like to say that....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Why did I ask the question? Because I am

referring to.... It will become apparent as this process goes on today,

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to answers that the minister gave

yesterday. I am going to suggest that the information the minister has

suggests that had he followed through in good faith on the consultative

process, the legislation that we would be debating at this time would

be much different from what we have before us. That's why I am asking

the question, and that's why I appreciate, but I'm not happy with, the

answer that the minister has given. That's why I'm going to share some

of the information that I understand to be enclosed within that

document.

You might title my comment as "So Much for Consultation." The

minister said that over 1,000 people responded. I understand on the

basis of his earlier "no" that he's not going to answer, so I'm not

going to sit down every time, but if the minister makes a move to

stand, I will gladly sit down.

Is it not true that there were 1,087 responses? And is it not true

that of those 1,087 responses, 1,018 — 96.6 percent — favoured some

change? Yesterday the minister referred to over 96 percent, which I

appreciated. Of 1,087 responses, 1,018 favoured some change.

I'll move on to the next point. This is where the information that

was not forthcoming yesterday, and should have been forthcoming, gives

cause for real sorrow on my part. As I have said all the way through

this process, I saw this as a subject that is better served through a

conciliatory process, through consensus, rather than through an

adversarial process.

[ Page 2085 ]

It gives me very much sorrow to report to the House at this time

that of the 1,087 who responded, 793 — or 75.2 percent — in fact

favoured an active registry, meaning that 100 out of the 1,087 who

responded, or a mere 9.5 percent favoured a passive registry. Is it not

true, Mr. Minister, that when you asked for public response, you

pledged to heed that public response? Is it not true? You pledged that

you would listen to the input of the public, and that that would be

reflected in the result? Is that not true?

Mr. Chairman, in 1985 the position that we put forward — I would

have to say on that continuum that I referred to yesterday between a

very passive registry and a very active registry — actually in the

scheme of things would probably be more on the side of a passive

registry. This is a very complex kind of an issue, and it took quite a

while for me to even perceive that, but I would have to say now that

although the position we took in 1985 was much advanced — a giant step

— the government's position is a very small step.

We are aware of the response that the public gave in good faith to

the minister. We are prepared to change our position to one that

favours an active registry, given the kind of support that we have from

people like Dean Ralph Garber, the B.C. Association of Social Workers,

and many, many organizations and individuals. A total of 1,018 people

responded to the minister saying that they favour an active registry.

So much for consultation in this province, Mr. Minister. We've listened

to the public response, and we're prepared to go on record as saying

that we support an active adoption registry.

I would like to ask the minister once more, in fairness to all the

people who submitted their responses to his request in good faith, will

the minister table the background paper on the establishment of an

adoption disclosure registry? Yes or no?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I've already answered twice, and the

answer is no. The member obviously has the complete report and the

numbers, and I indicated yesterday that they were such. A lot of

deliberation went into choosing whether to go to an active adoption

registry or to make that first step to a passive registry. We covered

this yesterday. That doesn't mean we didn't consult with people, but it

does mean that the responses were mainly from adoptees. I can't give

you the exact numbers, but there are unquestionably thousands and

thousands of British Columbians out there who did not respond to our

request for information or for their thoughts on an adoption registry.

So we felt, after much deliberation and consultation, that the way

to go was to a passive adoption registry, which we have done, and which

we are going to do. It is a giant step forward — no matter what the

member says — from what we have had. It's the first change to the act

in something like 67 years. The need is clearly there. As I said

yesterday, Mr. Chairman, if after an appropriate number of years we

determine, or some other minister determines, to make the next step to

an active registry, that's something that can be decided; the mechanism

will be in place, and it will be a very easy step to make. But in all

fairness to those who don't want any kind of a registry — and there

were a few; a very vocal few — and to those who would like to be part

of a decision as to whether people should be reunited, we decided to go

with the passive registry. It is meeting with approval by the majority

of British Columbians. Although the group that would like an active

registry is very vocal — there's no question about it — we feel they

are still the minority of the population.

So we're going to go with the act as it is amended here under Bill

26. We feel it's not only a giant step forward, but a very good and

progressive step, and it brings us into line with the thinking of the

majority of people in the 1980s.

MR. CASHORE: I think the comments of the minister confirm a

point that has been made a few times in this House, but perhaps in the

clearest, most succinct and condemning way. When this government talks

about consultation, it is talking about a false hope. I think this

comment that we just heard from the minister makes that very clear.

Since 75.2 percent of those responding to his request for information

favoured an active registry, would the minister tell this House just

what the percentage would have to be before he would feel that he

should perhaps start to make another step along this road? I would like

the minister to give us some indication. Would it have to be 99

percent, 99.9 percent? How can you send a message to the people of

British Columbia to take you seriously when in the future you ask for

input on issues such as this?

I hope the minister will answer that, but I'm going to toss in a

couple more questions now. Referring to clause 1,

section 13.1(2) of

the Adoption Act, the persons who may be recorded and identify

themselves are "persons adopted in British Columbia" and "the natural

parents of persons adopted in British Columbia." I would like to ask

the minister why the registry would not include persons adopted in

other provinces, and why it would be restricted to the natural parents;

why it would omit siblings and the extended family.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe we covered these points at

second reading yesterday. I did make the remark, in my opening

statements to the amendment, that at some future date we may expand the

list to include siblings or extended family; that's something, again,

that may be a step taken in years hence.

For all of the member's political pomposity in trying to make points

on this and saying that the government doesn't consult, it's a lot of

hot air, Mr. Chairman, just a lot of hot air....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: ...such as is coming out of the member for Vancouver East at the moment.

We're supposed to be at the committee stage of a bill, discussing

the technicalities of the bill. These points were all covered yesterday

in second reading, but for some reason, the member now wants to make

political points. He said it was 75.2 percent, but the key phrase was

"of those responding" — special interest groups who responded. We took

that into account, Mr. Chairman, to try to be fair to everyone...

MR. RABBITT: All the people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: ... to try to be fair to all the people of

British Columbia, as we have done with all the legislation we've

introduced. It doesn't come down on the side of special interest

groups, as the members opposite always seem wont to do; they represent

special interest

[ Page 2086 ]

groups. We believe this bill represents the best interests of all British Columbians.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the

minister that in the comments I made, I did not use unparliamentary

language. I used language that was appropriate for this House, given

the circumstances.

I would like to ask, moving on to (3), why it would only be "adult,"

and only at a person's request. The third question is: what about the

need that relates to a person's health concerns, in terms of searching

for their roots? How is that addressed in this legislation?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well

that health and medical information has always been shared with

adoptees and adoptive parents. That is nothing new, that will not

change, and it has always been shared.

MR. CASHORE: Moving on to (4), it states: "The identity of a

person who adopts a child shall not be recorded.... I would like to ask

why that is "shall not." Why is it so definite that that person, under

any circumstances, would not be recorded? I don't understand what the

point of that is.

[12:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, Mr. Chairman, the member should

read the full sentence: "The identity of a person who adopts a child

shall not be recorded in the registry." The adoptive parents are

recorded elsewhere in my ministry, but it says clearly "shall not be

recorded in the registry."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, looking at sections (3) and

(4) in concert, I'm pleased to support the minister on this. They also

recognize the rights and the emotional rights of the parents who adopt

the children. Should just numbers of adoptees, who say,"I would like to

know who my parents are," at any age...? What about the people who have

gone out of their way to take in these children when someone else, in

effect, abandoned them? They have taken in these children, and they

have given their family and their emotions to these children. Should

that be disregarded?

I know that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) was

saying that consultation is based strictly on numbers of a group that

can be polled. If that were the case, then all consultation would

result in simply going to those with the greatest interest — in other

words, adopted persons — and saying: "How do you vote?" Get a bunch of

numbers and disregard the quality of those statements and the true

emotional feelings of those parents who have adopted the children and

considered them in every respect their very own. I don't think those

people should be ignored.

So I think that to go to the passive registry when children reach

the adult age is, as the minister says, a giant step, and I think it is

fair to all concerned, not just to the poll of 1,000 adoptees in this

province. It also considers the merits of those people who adopt them —

their feelings — and their full adoption of those children into the

family and considering them their own. I don't think we can disregard

that, and certainly I don't think we can, every time legislation comes

into this House, go out and do a survey, and then simply take it in

numerical terms, disregard all of the other feelings and say that

unless you do what some people ask, then we do not have proper

consultation.

Suppose you went out to all of the drivers in this province and

asked if they thought the speed limit should be higher, and you got a

60 percent majority of these drivers to say yes and then put it in

legislation with a complete disregard for the engineering features of

the highway and the safety of the rest of the public and school zones

and that sort of thing. That would be consensus simply to take the

interests of one group, who have a very vested interest, and disregard

all of the feelings and all of the rights of the rest of society.

No, I think this government has to represent all of the people in

this province, and that includes those parents who have adopted

children and, for all intents and purposes, do consider them their very

own. Those rights have to be respected as well.

MR. ROSE: I was just going to ask the Minister of Social

Services and Housing a question. He said 1,000 people were sampled and

75 percent of them said they wanted an active registry. Did he actually

sample the others, let's say the silent majority? Why is he guided by

that great, mythical unsampled silent majority rather than the people

who expressed themselves? They were the most concerned and probably the

most....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: When you get 75 percent of the vote, do you

question the electorate? No, you take your seat and run with it. That's

what you do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

MR. ROSE: The hon. minister argues on both sides of the fence

when it suits him to do so and attempts to defend the indefensible. We

are saying that if you don't intend to follow the representations and

the advice of those people who gave it to you, then don't ask them. To

ask them and not be guided by their advice is a fraudulent exercise.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have a couple of points I want to make.

First of all, I resent the implication that it's a fraudulent exercise.

We listen to everyone. That doesn't mean that we didn't take into

account the people who wanted an active registry, but we also took into

account those who wanted no change and those who wanted a passive

registry.

After weighing all of the evidence and firmly realizing that those

with a vested interest would be there in larger numbers, we decided to

come down on the side of a passive registry. I would firmly suggest

that if the member who is now leaving the chamber, who made that

statement, and my critic opposite feel that strongly, then vote against

the legislation. Please do.

Follow the courage of your convictions and stand up and vote against

it when the vote is called for. If you feel that strongly, then have

the courage of your convictions to say that we were wrong, that I was

wrong in what I've done. You stand up and vote against it. I challenge

you to do that right now. We do not — I repeat — represent just special

interest

[ Page

2087 ]

groups, whether it be big labour, big management, big anything.

We represent all the people in this province. From the samplings

that I've had and the phone calls and the mail, we are doing the right

thing. The people are happy with what we're doing. There is always

going to be a small group of people who are not happy with what we're

doing. You seem to represent those people, so stand up and vote against

it.

MR. CASHORE: I don't for a moment think that the comment we

just heard was a political comment. I wouldn't for a moment make that

suggestion. I said yesterday that in discussing this adoption issue,

we're talking about a birthing process. When I think of the birthing

process, I think of people learning to walk and taking their first

hesitating steps.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you against it?

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: This government is taking its first hesitating

step, and I would not be one to stop that infant child from taking its

first step. I would not be one to stop that infant child from at least

getting started.

I would like to refer to the comments of the hon. Minister of Education.

MR. REE: On a point of order, I believe we are in committee

and not in general debate on this. I might ask the member to be

relevant to the particular

section of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right, hon. member, but there is nothing wrong with the relevancy that we've heard.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to say to the hon. Minister of

Education that with regard to a couple of the points he made on

consultation, he used the example of the public making comments on

traffic and then engineering studies. If he was going to be consistent

in his example, what he would have to say then is that when we're

discussing this issue, who are the professionals? Not engineers, but

social workers. I have information that I have cited in this debate

from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, which has called for an

active adoption registry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What about the parents?

MR. CASHORE: Parents were among those who responded to the

minister's survey. Having said that, I would also like to say that the

B.C. Association of Social Workers — if the minister is interested —

has a more creative response to the very important issue the minister

was raising. It's a very important issue about all people concerned,

and about how they deal with it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: After the age of ten you don't care about the kid anymore.

MR. CASHORE: Not to disregard what the minister is saying — I think

the minister is raising an important point — the B.C. Association of Social Workers

and adoption organizations are saying that you don't deal with that issue

by denying access to information. You deal with it by a creative process of

counselling, which enables all people to be winners in this process.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, as an adoptive parent I think I can tell

you from firsthand experience that when my daughter started to raise

questions about her roots, it was the most enriching experience for our

entire family to participate in that search. We felt that we all grew

as a result of having that opportunity, and I will cherish it all my

life.

So I think it is unfortunate if the Minister of Education is seeking

to suggest by what he is saying that he is representing all adoptive

parents. In doing so, I think he is being very unfair, and I wish he

would make it clear in this House that he does not wish to suggest that

all adoptive parents support the position as he has described it. I

would certainly think that if he did say that, he would be hearing from

some people who were very upset.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to take much of the committee's

time. I know the Lieutenant-Governor is anxious to get in here and get

on with his busy

schedule before he enjoys his weekend and plans his

garden party for late July, but I wish to emphasize a slightly

different point than what has been discussed here.

I think — I know — there is general agreement that there should be a

registry of some sort. The point that I wish to raise is, I suppose,

the civil libertarian point. I feel very strongly about this. I believe

that when a citizen of Canada, or indeed a citizen of any country, has

reached the age of majority — the age of 19 — that person has the right

to any statistical information that the state has on their behalf. They

have a right to go in and ask for any information and receive any

information that this province — or indeed any province — may have on

his origins, whether it be on the history of adoption or on blood

parents.

I don't believe it matters a darn what any other individual thinks.

Their blood parents, their natural parents, their adoptive parents — it

doesn't really matter. Citizens, once they reach the age of majority,

have a right to know what's on their personal record, and they should

be able to go in and get that from vital stats. I would say this in

this jurisdiction or in any other jurisdiction. I'm not shooting down

the various arguments that we have heard for registries, because

obviously a great deal of information about an individual's origins

will not be on the vital statistical record in a given province. But

anything on that record should be available to the individual once they

have reached the age of majority.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I appreciate the member's remarks, It's a

case that has been made many times by many people, and it's a good

argument. In one sense I tend to agree with the member: that when a

person has reached the age of majority, they should be entitled to all

of this information.

On the other hand, let's take the other side of the argument, which

I heard very eloquently as well. I could read you letters — very

eloquent letters — from people who believe that the status quo should

have been maintained, and there should be no registry. They have very

strong feelings that they entered into a contract at the time they

adopted their child, and that by establishing any sort of a registry we

are breaching that contract. I could read you very eloquent testimony

on that side of the argument too, and yet I appreciate

[ Page 2088 ]

your side. I tend to agree with you, and who knows

— maybe in some future year not too far down the road there may be a

challenge under the Charter of Rights, and they may even uphold such a

statement as you've made. Those are two sides of the argument. The

third side is from the natural parent who gave her child up for

adoption and entered into a contract that that would be kept

confidential. It may be a part of her life that is long past, and she

doesn't want that resurrected.

So there are three sides, literally, to this argument; three

distinct scenarios and three distinct positions. I've heard them all

and they're all very eloquent, and one can agree with all three. That

is why, not having the wisdom of King Solomon, say, we decided to come

down on what we considered was, to repeat myself, a giant step forward:

the establishment of a passive registry, which will please most, but

naturally not please all. So we think we have come down where we should

be on this.

[12:15]

The member says: "Who are the professionals in this?" I think it

goes beyond professionalism. This is a very emotional issue, as you can

tell, so it goes beyond professionalism. The B.C. Association of Social

Workers are, I agree, professionals in social work, and I have the

highest regard for them; but that doesn't mean they have all the

answers when it comes to this. The parents and the children and the

natural parents and the adoptive parents are all just as much

professionals as are the social workers. So having assimilated all of

the information, I again reiterate that we have come down with what we

think is the best answer.

MR. GUNO: I must confess that I'm rising to make a point that

I dealt with in second reading yesterday, but I want to canvass the

minister's opinion about a technical and legal aspect of that point. We

mentioned some concerns about the bill providing a passive reunion

registry and how that relates to the concerns of native people in

British Columbia. We talked about the fact that this bill does not

recognize or provide for the fact that in the Indian communities, the

sense of collectivity is paramount over any regard for individual

rights. I'm not saying that they disregard them, but in terms of trying

to protect their cultural identity, this is a priority.

I just want to remind the minister — and I'm just wondering if this

has been considered — that that sense of collective right is recognized

and affirmed in the constitution under the Charter in

section 35. If we

were to let this bill through without any provision for notifying the

bands that a member is going to be adopted out of that community, then

in a sense I think we will be in danger of depriving that person of the

fundamental right which is recognized and affirmed under the Charter. I

just want to canvass the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member is right. We did

canvass this yesterday at second reading, and I reiterate that the

provision for consultation with bands and tribal councils is in the

act. We do that, and we have no intention of changing that. But I do

have to reiterate that while we respect the community rights of native

peoples — or, for that matter, of any other people — we still feel that

individual rights take precedence over such community rights.

MR. D'ARCY: I have to very rapidly take issue with the

minister's belief that some people have a right to feel they have a

contract that affects another individual — a free citizen, a taxpayer —

once that person reaches the age of majority. People justified slavery

the same way. They said: "We've got a contract over this person." It

doesn't matter, Mr. Chairman. People don't have contracts over their

wives or their husbands in terms of their individuality, and they don't

have contracts over their children. When they reach the age of

majority, natural parents or adoptive parents do not have contracts

over those individuals. They are null and void, and totally invalid.

Let's get away from this notion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the member was misinterpreting

what I said. I was merely putting forward the point made by adoptive

parents. I didn't say I necessarily agreed with them, or that those

contracts should be valid. I even made the point that I feel that

before too long there will be a challenge under the Charter of Rights.

I was merely making the point that it was made very eloquently to us

that a lot of people feel very strongly about the "contract" that they

entered into.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, these are my concluding remarks. I

want to say that when the minister referred to my comment about social

workers, I was responding to the point that the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) had made about engineers and traffic studies. Of

course, I agree with the minister. I agree that the people we really

need to be listening to are those parents who responded to the survey.

I think that is tremendously important.

I want to point out that in Dean Ralph Garber's report, he suggested

that there are two kinds of information. One kind is non-identifying

information, and the other is identifying information. When those two

kinds of information are set side by side, it does show very clearly

how an active adoption registry can work.

I have two other concerns about the bill. One is that there is not a

provision covering the handling of what information goes out. Finally,

while this has been a very spirited debate, all of us on this side of

the House are nevertheless pleased to be able to take this small step,

with all due respect to the kind of statements that have been said here

today. We are going to vote in favour of this.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I'm doing so....

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, could we please have some order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: We're supporting this with some extremely

difficult feelings, because it could have been so much better. When we

look at the other provinces, five have passive registries and three

have active. We could have been one more and we could have been showing

the way.

I want to conclude with the words of Carl Sandburg, because part of

what this is all about is a search for identity. He said: "When a

society or civilization perishes, one condition can always be found:

they forgot where they came from."

[ Page

2089 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, this has gone on long enough

and some very trivial points have been debated at length here. I do

appreciate the fact that the member has said you're going to vote for

this. I still have an inclination to call a division just to see if

that is true, because after some of the debate that's gone on here, I

feel that maybe two or three of your members would like to stand up and

vote against this bill, and I would hate to deny them that opportunity.

However, taking the member at his word — that they're all going to

vote for this giant step forward — I will just say in closing that I

agree that this step is long overdue. I am pleased to be the minister

that has recognized that and has brought it forward. I appreciate the

spirited debate. I know the majority of British Columbia will be very

happy with this amendment.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Adoption Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, sections 2 to 4 really deal with

reducing the time in which property is forfeited to the Crown one year

earlier for non-payment of property taxes. I want to ask the minister a

question. There are two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, some

individuals, I realize, during a period of high interest rates were in

fact deliberately not paying taxes, and investing the money — and to

get around that problem, I think, is completely legitimate. On the

other hand, if lower income groups are unable to pay taxes, there is a

problem in terms of potentially forfeiting property sooner than would

otherwise be the case. Could the minister give us some indication in

terms of the demographics of the individuals that this is really

attempting to deal with? Does he have those kinds of numbers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Chairman. It's not aimed at any

demographic portion of the population; rather it's dealing with the

status of property and its currency of tax payments. It doesn't have

any demographic implication in that sense.

MR. CLARK: The minister can't tell us, then, who doesn't pay

taxes now, and how this impacts on forfeitures. In other words, is

there going to be an increase in the number of people that forfeit

their property to the Crown because of shortening the time? If that's

the case, then who does it affect?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have those figures

with me, but I suspect that if we examine the issue, the fact would be

that the vast majority of the dollar value involved would be owned by

corporations who are taking advantage of the opportunity to delay the

payment of their obligations.

The initiative here, and what we're doing with this amendment, is

merely bringing our requirements regarding forfeiture, and therefore

the obligation to pay, in line with what exists now with the Municipal

Act. We are paralleling the Municipal Act, and, if anything, in the

comparison we are slightly more generous in some relatively minor

details.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 41.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the members for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2090 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, on behalf of our Speaker,

I'd like you to welcome today to the assembly Peter Kent, the

administrator of Whistler, and His Worship Drew Meredith, the mayor.

I am advised that His Honour is in the precincts for royal assent,

and perhaps members could remain in their seats. His Honour will be

approaching the chamber shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987

Expropriation Act

Engineers Amendment Act, 1987

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987

Legal Profession Act

Adoption Amendment Act, 1987

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987

School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987

Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987

Victoria Foundation Act

Columbia Bible College Act

An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation

Vancouver Museum Foundation Act

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment Act, 1987

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act (No. 2), 1987

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before moving adjournment, I will advise

the Legislative Assembly that we will sit as usual pursuant to our

standing orders on Monday, but will have an evening session for

consideration of further estimates and other business. We will sit

Thursday pursuant to standing orders, but will probably try to be out

of here by 5:30, at least, on Tuesday afternoon. Following adjournment

Tuesday afternoon, the House will stand adjourned until the following

Monday.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:34 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada