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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1987 (Bill M205). Mr. Gabelmann

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 46). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

Local Election Reform Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 2031

Municipal Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1987 (Bill 44). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 2032

Police Act (Bill 43). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2032

Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Michael

Introduction and first reading –– 2032

Oral Questions

Lowering of B.C. credit rating. Mr. Stupich –– 2033

Mr. Harcourt

Technigen Platinum Corp. Mr. Sihota –– 2033

Youth and mental health services. Mrs. Boone –– 2034

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Ms. Marzari –– 2034

Prince George mortality rate. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies –– 2035

Supply Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2035

Second reading –– 2035

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Stupich

Committee stage –– 2036

Mr. Clark

Third reading –– 2036

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2036

Mr. Stupich –– 2037

Mr. Blencoe –– 2037

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2037

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 41). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2037

Mr. Stupich –– 2037

Mr. Blencoe –– 2038

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2038

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Second reading.

Mr. G. Hanson –– 2038

Ms. Smallwood –– 2038

Mr. Lovick –– 2041

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2043

Adoption Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 26). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 2044

Mr. Cashore –– 2045

Mr. Bruce –– 2047

Mr. Guno –– 2048

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 2048

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 2049

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rabbitt

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize any of the hon. members,

you'll notice that the Pages who serve us so well are not with us

today, because they're all graduating. I'm sure the House would like to

send congratulations.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this

afternoon are some very special women from the Surrey-Newton,

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley area, and I would ask the House to be a little

patient. Many of them are here for their first visit, and I would very

much like to have this visit recorded.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Shirley Johnston, the

president of our Surrey-Newton Social Credit WA, Riitta Pearson, Olise

Ervin, Rita Waenink, Emmeli Seiler, Eileen Martin, June Conway, Jean

Faessler, Ivy Boundy, Sue Derksen, Janine Krott, Savitri Ahlwat, Eva

Knapp, Lorraine Watts and Jeanne Eddington. Please make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery today from the silver city of

Trail are Mayor Charles Lakes, who is also director of British Columbia

Transit, and Alderman Sandy Santori. They're here to do business with

the B.C. government on behalf of the residents of Trail. I'd like the

House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Earlier this morning I introduced a group

of truck loggers from the Prince George area who were visiting the

precincts. I wasn't advised that Gerry Kirschke was here, but he is, so

would the House please welcome Gerry.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm very pleased to introduce visitors to the

Legislature who met with our caucus this morning and this afternoon.

They're here from the B.C. Central Credit Union, one of the best credit

union systems in the world. I'd like you to welcome Ian MacPherson, Tod

Manrell, Ken May, Barry Forbes, Wayne Nygren, Richard Thomas and Vicki

Easingwood.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the gallery today is my kid sister Olga and her husband Abe, and my dear wife Helen.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to

introduce to the House a member of the Nanaimo division of the B.C.

Honey Producers' Association and the Vancouver Island Exhibition

Association. Stanley Cooke is visiting the House with his brother, and

I would like to ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have two special guests,

Bill and Joan Goodacre. Bill is the special projects manager for the Canadian

Paraplegic Association and the British Columbia Paraplegic Foundation. I met

his wife, Joan, in grade 1 at Lord Kitchener elementary school. They're

in Victoria for the district 4 international Gyro convention, which will see

about 800 Gyros and Gyrettes come to Victoria to enjoy a weekend of friendship

and strengthen the bonds between the Canadians and the Americans. I'd ask

the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, 1987

Mr. Gabelmann presented a bill intituled British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1987.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker. this bill is an updated version

of legislation that I introduced first in 1984 and again in 1986, which

would replace the Human Rights Act that is on the statute books in this

province.

I won't go through the details of the legislation, as I've done that

in previous years, except to note that this year I have added another

condition of protection for people in the human rights field: that is,

protection for persons with a medical condition. That would obviously

include people afflicted with the AIDS disease and others with medical

conditions because of which they might be discriminated against.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

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

a bill intituled University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This bill will regulate land use within

the developed area, and I want to very specifically clarify that the

bill covers only the developed area. This is the area known as the

University Endowment Lands. This establishes a solid legal foundation

for a community land-use code.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

LOCAL ELECTION REFORM ACT

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

a bill intituled Local Election Reform Act.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This very progressive legislation will pave the way for uniform, concurrent three-year terms for locally elected officials.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:15]

[ Page

2032 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

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

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a variety

of measures designed to improve the legislation which governs the

conduct of local government in British Columbia. These include the

removal of unnecessary provincial approvals, the provision of a

legislative basis for liability insurance pooling, adjustments to

property tax measures to enhance the homeowner grant program,

post-incorporation property tax transition rules, liability insurance

pooling provision for municipalities, and transition assistance to

offset the removal of the machinery and equipment tax. Mr. Speaker, I

move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

POLICE ACT

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Police Act.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Let me say, first of all, that this is an

exposure bill. It is the first major attempt to revise the Police Act

in about 14 years. What it does primarily is to bring some sunlight

into the method of handling police complaints. It provides for a

citizens' complaint procedure, a new one. which will be set up under a

complaint commissioner who will a member of the B.C. Police Commission.

This will not avoid the usual procedure of complaining to the chief

constable and ultimately to the police board, nor will it undermine

that, but it will allow the complaint commissioner provincially to

monitor that procedure or to launch his own investigation, if and when

he wishes.

After the procedure normally has been followed, or in addition to,

or in spite of, it provides a method of ensuring that people believe

that the police don't just investigate each other. It will enable the

complaint commissioner to request a special investigation by the B.C.

Police Commission, and it will allow for a hearing by that commission

if that becomes necessary. This will dovetail also with the new

procedures under the RCMP Act.

We are also in this exposure bill refining some of the duties of the

B.C. Police Commission to ensure its independence and its

restructuring. At the same time I should tell the House that the

disciplinary regulations for police, which have not been changed since

about 1974, are going to undergo an entire review. But we're not doing

that unilaterally; that is being done by a special committee

representative of the entire police community, including local

government, and they will be reviewing and making those recommendations.

As a result of their review and the exposure that this bill has —

it's already had quite a bit of consultation — we will be proceeding

with this bill either later in the year or revising it and bringing it

back in another session. But it's being done by way of a statutory

green paper. I have great pleasure in moving first reading.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

MOTOR CARRIER AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael), I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987.

Before moving first reading, I'll advise the House that the

parliamentary secretary for the minister — the member for South Peace

River — will be now making a brief statement in sponsorship of the bill.

MR. WEISGERBER: The Motor Carrier Amendment Act introduces

three basic types of changes. The first: amendments will reduce the

amount of paperwork for motor carriers, and for the motor carrier

branch. To achieve this, we are introducing fleet licensing. Motor

carriers would no longer be required to maintain individual licences

for each vehicle they operate.

Second, there will be greater emphasis on compliance with the Motor

Carrier Act and its regulations. Fines and penalties will be increased

to levels where they will no longer be considered inexpensive permits.

The act will introduce peace-officer status for motor carrier branch

personnel. This will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the

branch in its enforcement role.

Finally, the amendments will empower the minister to give policy

direction to the Motor Carrier Commission. This will permit government

policy to be explicitly stated when necessary. The minister will also

be able to direct the commission to undertake investigations on matters

of general concern to the motor carrier industry and to the users of

that industry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a funny sense of dj vu. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd like to introduce one of my Oak Bay

aldermen, Alderman Neil Swainson, who is in the gallery, and who for

many years was a popular teacher in Victoria and a professor of

political science at the University of Victoria — and a fine gardener

and raconteur, I might add.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2033 ]

MR. LOENEN: From the great riding of Richmond, in the

members' gallery we have two constituents: Mr. John and Mrs. Helen

Yule. Please bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

LOWERING OF B.C. CREDIT RATING

MR. STUPICH: A question for the Minister of Finance. I note

that for the second time in recent years B.C.'s credit rating has been

reduced. I wonder if the minister would agree that this is a reflection

of the international banking community's concern about the effects on

our economy of the disastrous labour relations that will be resulting

from the passing of Bill 19.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The question catches me unprepared. Let

me respond by saying no. Furthermore, I think the House and the

citizens of the province should be made aware of the fact that there

has been absolutely no market reaction to Moody's reassessment of B.C.

Hydro's credit rating. I think it is important that people should know

that the only instrument of provincial financial policy that borrows on

the American market is B.C. Hydro and that this rating or ranking would

only affect the B.C. Hydro securities being dealt with on the American

market. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the market's assessment of

B.C Hydro's bond listings rose on today's market. So if anything, the

action seems to have had a positive effect rather than a negative one.

But furthermore, the assessment that's indicated by Moody's action

is merely another example of delayed reaction by those who might judge

our performance from distant shores, where we are practically at the

end of a long, thin thread, and so frequently they react late and

inappropriately. The fact of the matter is, because of those

assessments being made some months ago, Mr. Speaker, the rating agency

would not have been aware of the fact that we have made a tremendous

turnaround in the B.C. economy in the last four weeks. For example, the

current price of Canadian market pulp is $(U.S.)585 a tonne; that

compares to a year ago, when the average was $(U.S.)485 a tonne.

The question of copper, Mr. Speaker — the current Canadian price is up 11 percent from its 1986 average.

The question of lead — the price is up 50 percent from its 1986 average.

The question of zinc....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are in question period, not in

debate. I think the minister has to be fair. He's been going for over

three minutes in his answer. Could he conclude his answer, so we could

get on with the rest of the questions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There were a number of other positive indicators I could quote, but I won't impose on the House's goodwill.

Nevertheless, it is clear that I have not seen an adverse statistic

cross my desk in the last four weeks, Mr. Speaker. This province

clearly is entitled to a higher credit rating, and we will get it once

these new facts are known by the adjudicators.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the Minister of

Finance treats so lightly a drop in the credit rating of a Crown

corporation that is borrowing only $700 million this year. I would

think that a responsible Minister of Finance would be more concerned

about the attitude of this international banking agency, when it comes

to borrowing money in New York, when he's borrowing those kinds of

dollars.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he says to ask him a question. I

say that this is all a reflection of what's happened in the province in

the last two months. I ask the minister to confirm that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly the dramatic

turnaround in our economy and the vitality in the economy have not had

a chance to be recognized by these adjudicators. I would be far more

concerned were the market to have judged the Hydro bonds in an adverse

way as a consequence of this action by Moody's. The fact of the matter

is that Hydro bonds are selling for more this morning than they were

yesterday. It's pretty hard for the opposition to make a case that our

credit rating is damaged as a consequence.

MR. HARCOURI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of

Finance. I'd like to ask him why, when there was a socialist mayor in

the city of Vancouver, the credit rating went up to triple-A at the

same time, in the same week, that under a Social Credit government the

credit rating went down. Can he explain that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Quite clearly the answer is a matter of

public record, Mr. Speaker. Despite the objections and protests and

criticisms of the then mayor of the city of Vancouver, this government

continued to pour more and more money into that community to ensure

that it realized its national potential.

TECHNIGEN PLATINUM CORP.

MR. SIHOTA: I have another question for the Minister of

Finance, and I know he's prepared for this one. On April 1 the

Technigen Platinum Corp. announced that it had entered into a deal to

sell 6,700 golf simulators — that's their product — to the United

States. After investigations by the press, of which the VSE was

alerted, finally on April 22 the company admitted that it lacked those

same financial agreements; indeed, they did not exist.

During that time period, the principals of the company made all

sorts of profit because the stock went up and they sold out their

share. Could the minister explain why the VSE failed to act with

respect to Technigen Platinum Corp. In that 21-day interval between

April 1 and April 21? I know the minister has had an opportunity to

take a look at this matter.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't have all of that background data

with me and, as a consequence, could not do full justice to the

question. I'll take it on notice.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: New question. This week, Mr. Lawrence Nesis and

his companies were charged with 21 violations of the Saskatchewan

Securities Act. In 1985, one of his companies was delisted from the

Vancouver Stock Exchange.

[ Page 2034 ]

With respect to the Technigen situation — and he is one of the

principals of Technigen — the company has entered into, supposedly, a

deal to sell these products to an individual who owns a company, and

this individual has had a criminal record going from 1962 to 1985.

There are all sorts of criminal activities involved.

Could the minister explain what steps, if any, are being taken by

the VSE to review Mr. Nesis and what restrictions, if any, are being

placed on his ability to act as a director or officer of any company

listed on the VSE? Given the fact that the commission has these powers

to restrict, what restrictions are being placed?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Obviously, with such a technical question

I'd have to take it on notice, and I am happy to do so. I do want to

make a general kind of response to suggest that if there have been any

inadequacies or abuses by the monitoring agencies of the VSE, or any

oversights on the part of the Securities Commission, which is a

creature of this government, I'd take great exception.

In every single instance that I have had the opportunity to examine

problem areas, it has been evident to all that in the full abundance of

natural justice — that is to say, allowing business transactions to

occur without undue interference or manipulation and in a sense of

fairness — no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This is not

to say that I'm speaking to the facts of the cases brought forward here

today. As I say, I'll take those under notice.

YOUTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. It appears

that a provincewide freeze on hiring in mental health services is in

place. In Prince George, a youth counsellor position has been frozen;

in New Westminster, there's a freeze on the hiring of staff at a newly

instituted program for abused children; and, in Victoria, mental health

family counsellors are being laid off or redistributed up-Island. Why

is the minister targeting preventive youth programs and family programs

for cuts and freezes?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not sure where the hon. member gets that

information. We are certainly not freezing any positions that we've had

in the past in these various areas.

I haven't got all of the information before me right now as to the

exact numbers in the various areas that were mentioned, but Prince

George was one. In Prince George, we had a budget of $116,928 in '86-87

for services like physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech

therapists; the 1987-88 budget for the same number of people is

$190,000. So that's an increase, not a decrease. However, we will not

pay an unfilled position. In other words, if someone quits and they

haven't been able to rehire that individual, we certainly would not

allocate funds for the period of time — whether it's two months or

three months — that they're short one body.

MRS. BOONE: I don't know whether the minister understood my

question or not. These are mental health positions that were to be

filled, and they were told that they're currently frozen; that there is

a freeze on hiring and filling these positions. You're talking about

the physiotherapists, and that's something entirely different. I'm

talking about actual hiring positions.

Why is the minister putting hiring freezes on preventive programs?

These are programs that in the end are going to save the ministry money.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we're on the same track. We are

not putting a freeze on positions that were filled in the past. We may

put a freeze on not adding to our budget, which only makes good, common

economical sense, but we are not freezing positions that were there

before just because someone has left the employ. It's not true that we

will now not fill those positions. That's not a fact and we won't do

that.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Attorney-General. A youth

parole officer position in Prince George has been frozen. The SHAFT

program in Port Moody has been shafted, I guess one could say, and the

Share Society youth services program in Coquitlam has been cut. Why is

the Attorney-General, in addition to the Minister of Health, cutting

those areas that deal with youth and making our youth problem even

worse?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm surprised that somebody who is

apparently speaking on behalf of the needs of youth would try to

suggest that there's some kind of a slowing-down on these policies and

programs. Most of the increase in my budget is due to youth-oriented

programs — Young Offenders Act programs — and facilities, and we are

doing more in that regard than we have ever done before. One of the

major facilities is being built in the very riding — a neighbour — that

the Minister of Environment and House Leader represents, so she should

know that. The commitment is manifold.

MRS. BOONE: Again, to the Attorney-General. I don't doubt

that you're building facilities there, but what we want to do is deal

with the prevention. We want to deal with the people aspect out there.

This government has always been good at building buildings. You don't

really do things when it comes down to the people things. Why are you

cutting these positions that deal with people?

HON. B.R. SMITH: We do have concern about people and people

policies. They are not something that are monopolized by the other side

of the House. They do not have a monopoly on people programs, and

they're not the only ones in the world who care about people or youth.

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Economic Development.

Yesterday the minister said the B.C. Enterprise Corporation exists at the present

time, and "technically the company is incorporated." Then she went

on to describe just how, technically, the company is not incorporated. My question

is this: has B.C. Enterprise Corporation done any business under that name —

signed any leases, sold any land, hired any staff?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Mr. Speaker. If the member would like

to know why not, it's because they still do business under the name

B.C. Development Corporation and B.C. Place Ltd. and will do so until

the legislation passes this House.

[ Page 2035 ]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, can I ask another question there?

The board of directors of BCEC, this amalgamation of BCDC and B.C.

Place, has filed disclosure forms under the Company Act, which

basically tells us that they're over the age of 18, and they don't have

any specific interest in BCDC and B.C. Place. Will the minister assure

us that these directors will be filing pursuant to the Financial

Disclosure Act, which will tell us what we need to know, and what the

public needs to know — their holdings?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking about future actions, and I can't respond to that question.

PRINCE GEORGE MORTALITY RATE

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a

question put to me a couple of days ago. It was in regard to the

testing of water, particularly in the Prince George area. This question

was posed by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood).

I would like to state that the routine chemical sampling by the

Ministry of Health, when it was conducted some years ago, did not

produce critical information that justified its continuance. Instead,

the testing program was redirected toward investigating health or

associated problems identified by local medical health officers.

However, the local medical health officer in Prince George is assessing

the currently available data from all sources and will, if necessary,

conduct additional chemical water testing. Chemical water testing is

not done routinely, but is done when investigating health associated

problems identified by local medical health officers.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled replies to questions taken as notice.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1987

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

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply is introduced in order to provide supply for the

continuation of government programs until the government's estimates

for the 1987-88 year have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

The first interim supply for 1987-88 granted by the assembly was for

the three-month period, which ends in the next few days. Therefore this

interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of

essential payments, including the government's payroll and payments to

hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, may

continue uninterrupted. Therefore in moving introduction and first

reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be considered as

urgent, under standing order 81, and be permitted to advance through

all stages this day.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question of urgency, I've heard the hon.

minister's representations as to the urgency of the bill proceeding

further this day. In view of the fact that I've had an opportunity to

look at the bill, and that it is for just one month, it makes my ruling

much easier. I'm satisfied that standing order 81 is applicable.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will just take a few minutes here to circulate the bill before the minister's question is put.

Hon. members, you've all had an opportunity to look at the bill. The Minister of Finance.

[2:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This supply bill is in the general form

of previous supply bills. The first

section requests one-twelfth of the

tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government.

The second

section requests one-twelfth of the disbursement amount

required for the government's fully recoverable, ministry-related

financing transactions which appear in

schedule D of the estimates.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for early passage

of the supply bill in order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of

the government for the 1987-88 fiscal year. I move second reading of

Bill 39.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I say first that even without

your ruling that it is urgent and therefore should be expedited in one

day, we would not have opposed that, although frankly I must say that I

don't agree that it is that urgent. I doubt very much that any July

cheques will be issued next week, let alone this week, though possibly

the week after. I think it will be two or three weeks down the road

before the minister will be actually issuing any July cheques, so it's

not that urgent. But we're not going to argue about that.

I would like to repeat some of the remarks made by the House Leader

on the opposition side and that were agreed to, I thought, by the House

Leader on the government side, and that is that there is no need for a

second supply act. There should be actually no need for a first one.

It's only because nobody knew what the order of business was, knew when

we'd be meeting or how long we'd be meeting. There was no

schedule of

the House business. I hope that the remarks made by the House

Leader.... The House Leader on one side and the reaction on the other

side means that we're going to get that civilized, if I may use that

word with respect to a supply act. I think we have come a long way and

there is a long way to go yet, but this is one way in which the

interests of all of us and the interests of all of British Columbia

would be better served if there was some more order and some more

regular way of handling matters in the House.

We agree that for the length of time that it takes to complete the

estimates and the final bill, the government must have supply. Bills

must be paid. We are not concerned that they had to be paid this week,

but nevertheless the opposition will not hold up Supply Act (No. 2).

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I ask leave to refer Bill 39 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

[ Page 2036 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 39, Supply Act (No. 2), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CLARK: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because we just got

this bill and I don't have my estimates here, I'd like the minister to

explain for the House, or at least for me, the $35 million for

recoverable disbursements and what that means — specifically

schedule D

of the main estimates — and how that works.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: These are advances that we provide to a

number of organizations for which we have a funding responsibility. I

am referring to such things as the agricultural land development, crop

insurance stabilization, farm products, industry improvement, the

aquaculture incentive program. In all, there are some 15 or so items

for which we have some obligation to provide moneys to these various

organizations so they can continue with their publicly needed

objectives.

MR. CLARK: Can I ask the minister just briefly if the Farm

Product Industry Act is one of the organizations you're dealing with

and what the amount would be for that specific program?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, it is included in this program. The

annual disbursement in the vote is a total of $10 million. What we're

doing by today's decision is allowing us a capability of extending

one-twelfth of that to them within the next 30 days if it's needed.

MR. CLARK: I'm sorry, I don't want to get into a long debate,

but I'm just curious. The minister's budget speech on page 14 indicates

that the Farm Product Industry Act will be phased out and in fact no

new loans will be given under this act except for ones that were

committed to prior to the budget speech. I wonder if the minister could

tell us at all whether some of that $10 million is for projects or

whether the budget speech is a little bit at variance with this vote.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker,

it is not at variance. The point of the matter is that we do have

ongoing obligation for commitments made in earlier times that have to

be honoured. But there are 70-odd different assistance programs in the

Agriculture ministry, and obviously I can't speak with intimate

knowledge of each one of them.

Section 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Supply Act (No. 2), 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 29, in charge of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON MR. COUVELIER: Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, the Taxation (Rural

Area) Amendment Act, 1987, amends several processes in the

administration of property taxation in the rural areas of the province.

These amendments are being made consistent with our policy to simplify

and improve our tax administration processes.

Section 1 will simplify and render more efficient the tax

notification procedures at tax-billing time in May of each year. The

amendment allows the surveyor of taxes to issue a single tax notice

reflecting the tax payable on the authenticated assessment roll, as

amended by known supplementary assessment rolls at tax-billing time in

May of each year. The existing provision requires the tax notice to be

based on the authenticated assessment roll and, where applicable,

followed by a separate tax notice based on the supplementary roll. The

amendment will reduce extra paperwork and confusion to the taxpayer.

An amendment to

section 38 provides for the forfeiture of property

to the Crown one year earlier than at present: that is, after taxes

have been outstanding 30 months instead of the current 42 months. It

also adds provisions for a one-year period following forfeiture, during

which the owner has an absolute right of redemption upon payment of all

outstanding tax amounts: penalty, interest and fees. The amendment

reduces the amount of time an account will remain in delinquency

status, and provides for the forfeiture to the Crown of properties in

the rural area along approximately the same time lines as properties

which are put up for tax sale by municipalities under the Municipal Act.

The new provisions will come into effect for the nonpayment of taxes

for the 1986 or any subsequent calendar year. The amendments further

provide for taxpayers so affected to apply during the second and third

year after forfeiture for a minister's order revesting the property.

The present discretionary revestment provision is retained in respect

of forfeitures for non-payment of taxes for 1985 and earlier years.

An amendment to

section 56(

l) provides for the prescribing of fees

to be charged upon application for the discretionary revestment of

forfeited property. This measure will allow the recovery of a portion

of the expense incurred to complete the review. For each discretionary

revestment evaluation, considerable office expense and staffing

resource is required to review the circumstances which preceded the

forfeiture so

[ Page

2037 ]

as to determine if there is just cause for

redemption of the property. This fee will mean a small portion of those

expenditures will be recovered for the evaluation work performed.

The amendments also provide for administrative changes to outdated

sections. All of these sections will come into force and become law on

royal assent. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: It sounds almost like committee stage, the

detail the minister went into. So I'll just follow along with one

question. He may answer now, and then we won't have to ask it in

committee. The revestment period is now extended to three years. Does

that mean the Crown would have to retain ownership in the land that had

been taken over for nonpayment of taxes for that long? Or is there some

other answer? He may prefer to leave this until committee.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister answers the question, hon.

member, he will be closing debate. So he may want to leave it until he

closes debate.

MR. BLENCOE: As the Municipal Affairs critic for the New

Democratic Party, I see no basic problem with this legislation. The

only concern we might have — which could be brought up in committee —

is with sections 2 to 4, the Crown gaining access to property for taxes

one year earlier than is currently the case. I may wish to explore

that, and we will wait for committee to do that. But the minister may

respond and give us some clarification.

The only other thing is in terms of rural property tax, which is not

included in this bill but was in the budget, and may have an impact on

this legislation — that is, the increase in rural property taxes that

the minister announced in his budget, which were somewhat substantial.

We would hope that those increases in the budget won't bring into force

certain sections of this bill quicker than it would normally.

However, we will wait until committee to explore certain sections in more depth.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise members that the Minister of Finance will be closing debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I chose to deal with those questions during the committee stage; therefore I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 29, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these amendments to

the Real Estate Act is to increase the protection to purchasers of real estate,

while at the same time making errors and omissions insurance available at modest

cost to all licensed members of the real estate industry.

I am sure that all members of this House are aware that in recent

years, liability insurance has become more expensive and more difficult

to obtain. As a result, some real estate licensees may have chosen to

not carry this type of insurance, or have obtained limited coverage. I

believe that it is vitally important that the purchaser of real estate,

particularly the families purchasing their first home, be protected

from the consequences of an error or omission by a licensee.

Without adequate insurance, the purchaser can easily become the

tragic victim of an unintentional mistake on the part of the licensee.

Bill 41 will ensure that all licensees have adequate insurance and

provide a mechanism for the industry to pool their risk and ensure that

the cost of insurance is reasonable. One of the major principles

embodied in these amendments is that the corporation and fund created

by the legislation be completely within the control of the industry.

For example, a board of directors of the Real Estate Errors and

Omissions Compensation Corporation will be drawn entirely from the real

estate industry. Another important aspect of the legislation is the

safeguards which have been incorporated to help ensure the financial

viability of this insurance scheme.

First, there is an industry-proposed upper limit to the insurance of

$100,000 per occurrence. The liability covered by this insurance will

typically be the difference in value in a property caused by an error

or omission. This will rarely be the full value of the property itself.

It has been estimated that 95 percent of all claims would be less than

$100,000, that the average claim would be about $16,000, and that most

claims would be below $3,000 or $4,000.

Other safeguards include prohibiting the fund from borrowing money,

so that if there is a depletion of the fund, it must be replaced with a

premium income, not borrowed money. In addition, if the value of the

fund falls to an inadequate level, licensees may be required to obtain

insurance from another source. Thus, in every case protection of the

public will be maintained directly by the industry one way or another.

The difficulties experienced by the real estate industry in

obtaining reasonably priced errors and omissions insurance prompted the

real estate industry to come forward with this initiative. which I am

pleased to commend today as responsible and forward-looking. I believe

that it is an important and timely improvement to the legislation.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: Again, I think just a few questions to alert the

minister to some that may be asked at committee stage. I note the

minister says that it will ensure that all licensees have adequate

insurance. I am not sure just how we can determine in this legislation

or in any other way what will be adequate in every circumstance.

Previously it has been left to the licensee and the insurance company

with whom he or she dealt to determine what was their estimate of

adequate insurance for that particular licensee. So I wonder how it can

be guaranteed that there will always be adequate insurance. It would

seem to me that the adequate insurance figure here is $100,000. It

might very well be adequate in all cases. It might be that there are

some exceptional cases where it won't be adequate. I note the fund is

prohibited under the legislation from borrowing. I think what the

minister said after that indicates to me that there's going to be

insurance — that they will have to insure themselves with another

company that will

[ Page 2038 ]

be charging perhaps the extremely high rates that this bill is trying to protect people from.

These are just some of my concerns. We certainly support the legislation and the concept.

MR. BLENCOE: I, too, would like to put the minister on notice

of some questions that I certainly will put to him vis--vis the Real

Estate Act and some of the amendments he is putting forward, in light

of my concern as to what is happening with the Songhees development

here in the city of Victoria. A question I will be putting to the

minister is: if a Crown corporation acts in a negligent way, as laid

out in certain sections, what will happen to that Crown corporation?

Will the government, if they are acting as a developer or a real estate

agent, as we have in the Songhees, and the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)....? Will government agencies be

covered and will people be able to file complaints, errors or

omissions, or file for compensation based on negligence or, in my

estimation in Songhees currently right now, blatant violation of the

law of the province of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders I advise the House that the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I will respond to those questions and provide the comfort levels required by the questioners during the committee stage.

Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 38.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first member for Victoria adjourned debate.

MR. G. HANSON: I would defer to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to start off by saying that I think

this is probably the most important legislation that the Environment

minister has put forward and perhaps will put forward in this term of

office, because this, in essence, while it does deal with other issues,

deals with special waste management in this province.

I'd like to start off by saying that just the fact that the

government has recognized the problem and is attempting to deal with it

is really a positive move.

Starting off that way, what I'm trying to do is acknowledge the good

things first before I go into my concerns, because I have very serious

concerns about this legislation, and indeed about the way the

government is proceeding on this very important issue.

I realize the Minister of Environment is fairly new to the position,

and may very well not be aware of some of the history on this subject,

so I want to bring the House and the minister up to date on that.

For the past two years, 22 environmental, labour and native

organizations worked under the umbrella of the Hazardous Waste

Management Coalition. They worked with the previous Minister of

Environment, Mr. Pelton, and representatives from major industrial

associations. That grouping of individuals who were concerned about

special waste management in the province came together because they

realized that the province could not deal with the siting of a major

facility unless they worked together to grapple with this major

problem. Many of the citizens' groups that were involved in that

process became involved because they were the siting for a special

waste facility which was eventually turned down. While they were put in

the situation of protecting their own back yard, they realized the

significance of the problem and wanted to be involved in developing

something that would deal with the problem. Rather than just reacting

negatively, they wanted to have some positive input in the process.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Unfortunately, their two years has been totally disregarded by this

government. The work of that two years developed a step-by-step process

of public involvement. I point that out because this group recognized

that the answer was not a site location; the answer was to build

confidence in the people of this province that the government would

look after their interests, that their interests would be safeguarded,

and that indeed they would not be in a situation of having a facility

that they didn't have confidence in in their own backyard.

What they recognize by saying that the process is the most important

thing here is that there are answers out there. They wanted to be part

of those answers, and they recognized that any process that excluded

them from the decisions would be too narrow and could not ensure their

confidence.

Four recommendations were put forward, and it's interesting to look at the process.

First recommendation: to establish an ongoing public industry

advisory committee to make recommendations to government regarding

effective public education and consultation. On that issue alone we had

one minister, the first minister that worked with that issue, say yes,

and then the second minister — not the present Minister of Environment

— say no.

The second recommendation was a continuation of the unprecedented

industry-public-government working group. Again, there was agreement

from the first minister, and disagreement from the second.

Third recommendation: publishing of a draft strategy for hazardous

waste management which would then undergo modification through a public

inquiry and ultimately result in our first formal policy or game plan

for toxic waste management. Again, the first minister said yes, the

second minister said no.

The fourth recommendation was to review the significant information

on special or toxic waste, including B.C.'s inventory of these wastes.

The same interaction happened: the first minister said yes and the

second minister said no.

The minister presently responsible for this issue, coming into it

new, could very well have turned that around and recognized the

importance of that public process and building public confidence. What

we have before us, with the Waste Management Amendment Act, is a bill

that has not had public airing. It has not been put forward in such a

form that it

[ Page

2039 ]

could go out for input and consultation with the

Boyes commission that is now touring the province. The point I'm making

— and for the minister's clarification — is that this bill that's being

put to the House for adoption could very well have used the same

process as the Attorney-General's police bill. It would go out for

consultation and amendment and be brought back to the House. That's my

understanding of his police bill, and that's certainly how I think the

Waste Management Amendment Act should proceed, given that we have a

commission in the field now, talking to people.

The point of all the work done by the community groups for the last

couple of years was, as I said, to identify processes as of number one

importance, and to develop a comprehensive hazardous waste management

strategy for B.C. Several recommendations were made by this group, and

I want to read them for the minister's information.

One, that the extent and nature of the hazardous waste problem in

B.C. be identified, and that this information be put forward because it

is the basis of any plan. We have to realize how serious the problem is

and what dimensions the problem takes.

Two, that methods for reducing the amount of hazardous waste be

produced. If indeed, as the government has said in the past.... While I

don't believe that this comment has been brought to the House, I

understand that the government is committed to a privately owned

facility at this point; that that is no longer up for discussion. If

indeed the government already has a fixed idea about the facility, then

the method of reducing the hazardous waste is essential as part of the

public discussions so that the public begins to understand how this

facility will relate to the rest of the province: whether or not this

facility for profit will be run by the province, producing more and

more hazardous waste to make it profitable; whether we're back to the

same situation as Cache Creek found itself in in previous years, where

the discussion was whether or not to import hazardous waste to make the

facility profitable.

Three, methods for increasing the recycling of hazardous waste. That

again is an essential and fundamental aspect of any plan for special

waste management in this province. I'll give some examples later on.

Four, the identification and strategy for clean-up of existing

hazardous disposal sites. This bill does nothing to recognize that

there are problems in this province. There are hazardous waste sites.

We need to identify them, and we need a plan for dealing with those

sites. This bill deals only with the clean-up of permitted sites after

the adoption of this legislation.

[3:15]

Five, the transportation and storage of hazardous waste.

Six, the disposal of hazardous waste, including out-of-province options such

as the Swan Hills facility; options for ownership of the disposal facility —

Crown corporation, private enterprise or mixed; the procedures and criteria

for siting facilities; technical options; health and environmental standards;

financial liability and guarantees; monitoring the facilities, both health and

environment; enforcement procedures; closure and post-closure procedures; mechanisms

for public participation; trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes; strategies

to ensure compliance with approved hazardous waste procedures; achieving an

enforcement capability in the Ministry of Environment and Parks. We'll deal

a lot more with the enforcement capability of Environment and Parks, not only

in this bill but later on in the estimates as well.

Ongoing information requirements — that's public access to

information. Again I have to stress that the reason for public process

in an important issue like this is confidence. If the people of B.C.

are not confident with this facility, then it will not succeed. That is

the reason this three-party grouping spent their time in the last two

years dealing with a process of information access and sharing in an

open and public way.

Number 12, how to keep up with technological developments, and

number 13, legislative and regulatory changes where required. The whole

process goes before the bill. You've got it backwards: you've got the

bill coming before the process. People in this province haven't had the

opportunity to look at the engineering specifics of the disposal

capabilities, at the technologies that are out there, so that they can

be assured, so that they can be confident that it's going to work and

that their concerns will be addressed. You haven't dealt openly and

straightforwardly with the public to assure them that you have the

enforcement capability. And certainly the issues of liability in this

bill do not deal with the potential of disaster. For this whole process

which has been advocated, there has to be a recognition of the right of

the public to participate. In that recognition there must be intervener

funding made available.

In example after example, not only in B.C. but in Canada, in the

past there have been commissions undertaken that have been very

productive and that have allowed the public to learn along with the

ministry — because certainly the ministry must be learning; if the

ministry has all the answers right now, it does nothing to allay the

fears, because many jurisdictions are grappling with this serious

problem.

The ministry — traditionally, and through the permitting process —

puts communities in a situation where they're dealing with a yes-or-no

situation about a site location, a permit, without having the

information before them to make an informed decision. Again, I want to

make the point that it is important that full engineering and technical

information on the proposed facility — including the history of the

technology, the specifications, the potential for adoption to

technological improvement, monitoring systems, contingency and

emergency plans, its capacity, its ability to respond to reduced input

and its containment system — have got to be before the public before

any decisions are made about site locations or about permits being let.

All too often communities find themselves, as I said, in a situation of

appealing a permit and involving themselves in a process before they

have the operations plan before them.

I want to make a couple of points about the special waste program

that should be undertaken. While the government now has Dr. Boyes and

his commission traveling the province, holding open houses, I want to

make the point that I think these people, the three commissioners and

the two staff people, have been put in a very difficult position. I

think that they're basically very well-meaning people, and I think that

they want to be part of a solution. But with the government putting

legislation before this House, with the government dealing with issues

of regulations to special waste and not dealing with the confidence

issue, not providing intervener funding and not providing as part of

the commission's mandate that open public process, I am concerned that

the Boyes commission becomes nothing more than a committee for tender,

a siting committee, a committee that allows that difficult position of

whose backyard this facility should be in

[ Page 2040 ]

to be at arm's length from the government. So the

government, when it gets to the position of siting a facility, can say:

"Well, that was the recommendation of the committee. We're good guys.

We would not have done it to you."

I want to make a couple of points about these well-meaning people

who are working so hard to try to deal with this difficult problem.

There have been several different quotes in the press from Dr. Boyes. I

will quote a June 15

article in which Dr. Boyes says that hazardous

wastes are more pervasive than he thought just a few months ago, that

he was surprised to learn that some hospitals are discarding their

medical refuse in ordinary garbage dumps, that dry-cleaners have no

place to put spent cleaning solutions and that Agriculture Canada

advises farmers to bury unwanted pesticides in the ground. This tells

me that we have a gentleman here who finds the information he is

uncovering quite distressing. He is grappling with the problem. But if

the government were serious about continuing the process it initiated

two years ago, it would not have put these well-meaning people in the

position of being plunked down in the middle of a problem that many

people in this province have been trying to grapple with, and of

starting to learn from square one, given such a restricted time-frame.

The point was made time and time again in the last couple of years that

every other jurisdiction in North America has taken a great deal longer

than Dr. Boyes has to be able to answer this serious problem.

The question has to be put as to whether or not this committee can

truly fulfil the task that they may desire to do. In the open houses

being held around the province, Dr. Boyes is spending a great deal of

time talking about the hazardous wastes in your own kitchen, on your

own grocery list. A special waste facility for disposing of hazardous

wastes in this province is not going to deal with the problems in

municipal garbage dumps. That's another bigger, broader problem.

We need to deal with the whole issue of waste management in this

province in a comprehensive, systematic way. The commission itself has

undertaken to explore some of the technologies that exist in the world,

and I question the minister.... I look forward to getting into this

clause by clause, when the minister can provide some information for us

as to why there is funding for the commission to tour and look at

facilities, instead of using this as an information-sharing and

confidence-building process in B.C. and allowing community groups to

use their contacts to bring in experts and specialists to grapple with

this problem. Does the minister not have confidence in the people of

this province? It comes back in issue after issue.

On the issue of recycling and source reduction of wastes, I come

back to the point that this side has made time and time again: to have

a comprehensive waste management program we must ensure that there is a

publicly owned facility, not a facility for profit. I want to give some

information to the minister about some of the work that has been done

in the past. This was a study done in the state of New York in 1985 by

a public interest research group. They studied 29 chemical plants, and

they compared them. The first comparison was between two chemical

plants. Each was producing 2,000 pounds of formaldehyde a year. What

they found was that the first chemical plant actually lost 2,000 pounds

of waste per year. The second chemical plant — and this is the same

process and the same production — lost only 11 pounds a year.

It is clear that there is a role for government here. If the issue

is hazardous waste and dealing with the danger that hazardous waste

poses for the environment and for community health and safety, then the

government cannot merely site a facility for profit. It must live up to

its full responsibility and deal with a comprehensive plan. For

instance, it must intervene in a situation like this, take inventory of

the kinds of materials out there and act in a responsible manner to aid

companies to keep track of those wastes and to encourage them to

recycle and use those wastes. It is clear that one company here was

capable of doing that; the other company allowed a very dangerous

chemical to be released into the environment. They lost 2,000 pounds in

a year.

In addition — and this brings it slightly closer to home — in

Squamish there is an FMC plant. The plant is using an antiquated

process for manufacturing caustic soda and chlorine, in which mercury

is inevitably released into the environment. Fish in Howe Sound contain

high levels of organic mercury. A more sophisticated manufacturing

process uses a semi-permeable membrane instead of mercury, and

therefore eliminates the discharge of mercury into the environment.

[3:30]

Again, that is something the Ministry of Environment can get

involved with, identifying alternatives to toxic substances and

encouraging the industrial users to use other systems or alternatives

to toxic substances, which indeed would reduce the waste stream. It

might not be so good for a for-profit disposal site, but it certainly

would be good for the people of B.C.

Another example is a pulp and paper mill. As a rule, they use

chlorine bleach agents in various stages of their process. Chlorine

reacts with pulp to form persistent and mutagenic chemicals. There are

alternatives. The alternatives are oxygen-based bleaching agents; they

can do the same job, and they do not form these persistent residues.

Another example is the issue of PCBs, and this is an example that,

thank goodness, has already been acted on. While we have the disposal

of PCBs as a serious problem in this province, there has been action

taken where mineral oils and silicone oils have been used as a

substitute for PCBs. PCBs were banned several years ago, and they were

able to find alternatives. I would like to call on the ministry to deal

with it in a more comprehensive fashion and to look at some of these

alternatives, instead of dealing with this very serious problem in this

fashion.

On the bill itself — we will have more of an opportunity to deal

with it

section by

section — I just want to raise a couple of issues

that I find very alarming. First is the whole centralization process.

While I have talked a little bit about some of the issues that the

ministry, in this legislation has ignored or chosen to delete from a

comprehensive waste management plan, it has, however, in true form,

like with Bill 19 and other legislation, centralized the

decision-making process.

The minister, in releasing or announcing this bill, said to the

press that one of the most important issues to him was this waste

management trust fund. I'd like to point out and make a very strong

statement that when we are talking about facilities that are of

potentially high impact to the environment, the most important issue

for those facilities, for those companies' balance sheets, is

liability. I'd like to compare them to two different high-impact

facilities: nuclear reactors and one

[ Page

2041 ]

of the issues that we're dealing with in the province, offshore oil and gas.

For the siting of nuclear reactors, unless those facilities can be

assured of limited liability, they will not locate in a particular

province or country. Because of the potential for disaster, they look

for and are assured of limited liability. That, being the most

important issue to the company, surely must be the most important to a

community and to the province.

This bill does not ensure that the people of this province can feel confident....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to advise Hansard that I am the designated speaker and will continue.

As I was saying, on the issue of liability, it would do this

province good to compare itself with what is going on in the United

States. This raises significant concerns for me.

What the United States does with hazardous waste disposal is make

the generator, the transporter and the facility operator liable for the

substance for the length of time that it is toxic or hazardous. In

essence, that says that if a facility, 20 years after taking on

hazardous waste, runs into a problem.... I make the point that the

older such facilities get, the higher the possibility of a problem or

hazard existing. The liability program in the States says that 20 years

down the road, even if the facility has been closed, the government

then has the ability to go back and find the generator, the transporter

and the facility operator and hold those three bodies liable for the

clean-up or the destruction of that material.

Where this is important in a long-term disposal site — the lifetime

of which is considerable — is that if any one of those three companies

has gone bankrupt or just ceased to operate, the government has the

ability to look to the company that has the money to be able to deal

with the problem.

This waste management trust fund does nothing to ensure long-term

liability for the three parties involved, and I am very concerned about

that. I am concerned about the lack of information in this bill to

provide confidence that indeed this waste management trust fund will

have enough money in it to deal with any problem that does exist in the

short term. Again, we'll get onto that in the specifics later on.

When you look at the difference in the liability structure between

the United States and the province, if we have a for-profit facility

here in B.C. and the only way they can run it is by importing, and our

liability laws are not as strict as those in the United States, then

this government is setting us up as a Third World repository for

hazardous waste. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, I look forward to the

clause-by-clause, when we can explore these options, because I think

it's very clear to the people who have taken a look at the bill — and

I've had an opportunity to have different lawyers take a look and

advise me on it — that they agree with that scenario: you've left us

wide open.

In addition to that, and without going through the whole bill, I want to make

the point that by the government listing — and this is at the end of the bill;

a whole

section that amends the regulations — what you have done is put us in

a situation of approving a permit without the engineering stats in front of

us. We have no way of knowing, given this amendment, what the facility is going

to look like, what the regulations are, what the enforcement is, how the fund

is going to be run. None of the important issues are before us. When we go through

clause-by-clause. I will go through the proposed special waste regulations,

and we'll take a look at those, because I have some very serious concerns

about those as well.

But again, the way this bill has been developed, the information,

and most importantly the lack of information that is here, puts us in a

situation of trying to deal with a very serious problem and trying to

be constructive in dealing with that very serious problem, with the

government closing the doors against the pleas of community groups to

allow them to be involved in a productive way. Very clearly those are

their communities, and they have a right. They have a right to know, a

right to have the information in front of them, and a right to

participate, and every time the government closes the doors to those

rights, the government begs confrontation. It's true to style. It's

true to everything the government has done in this term of office.

In closing, I just want to address a further issue, one further

point that demonstrates the concern that people in this province have

and that again demonstrates a massive area in a waste management

strategy that the government seems to be ignoring — and, believe me, I

would be very pleased to have the minister stand up and say, "We're not

ignoring it, and these are all the things we're doing," because I want

this thing to work, as many people in this province do.

In the last couple of years there was a federal study, and the

federal study went through all of the provinces and tested for dioxin.

Dioxin is the most toxic chemical known to man. In minuscule amounts it

has very, very serious effects. The government has, to my knowledge,

not undertaken an inventory of a recognized substance that was

identified by that study as possibly one of the major polluters, and

that substance is the penta wastes that are used in preserving wood in

our forest industry. I have different examples here. I have some

incredible pictures of dip-tanks, where they're dipping wood and the

PCBs are flooding outside of the tanks, contaminating the earth; also,

analysis from laboratories showing how contaminated the earth around

those tanks is. At this point, there is no inventory of that material

in this province. We don't know how much there is, We don't know where

it goes — not only what effect it has had on the soil around the

dip-tanks but how that has affected the groundwater and what it has

done to the environment.

That's only one contributor to the dioxin contamination in our

province. It's a serious, massive problem, and the government in its

dealing with the disposal of this material doesn't know how much there

is.

I think I will close my portion of the debate. I know there are

other members that want to make comment. I hope the minister allows the

Boyes commission to work. Give it the support that is necessary, which

I don't think it has now, and provide intervener funding. Allow

community groups to get involved in the solution, and deal with this in

a comprehensive manner. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, don't call it

"special" waste. There's nothing special about it. This is a serious

problem, and we need it dealt with in a serious fashion.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the fact that my

colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) ended

by saying: "We want this thing to work." I would like to use that kind

of caveat for the beginning of my comments on this particular bill.

[ Page 2042 ]

We are responding to concerns that we perceive, to inadequacies as

we perceive them within this bill, in order that we can come up with a

comprehensive, serious policy that will enable us to deal with that

growing problem of waste management that confronts us.

I want to start by saying that it seems to me that my colleague for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was ringing the alarm bells. She pointed out a

number of different concerns, each sufficient enough by itself to cause

a responsible government concern. I seriously hope that the government

was concerned in listening — appearances to the contrary.

It seems to me that there is an issue here that is immense —

"gross," if I can use that term advisedly — and dangerous. Unless we

address that issue, we are going to have a considerable debt of guilt

on our shoulders owing to future generations.

Having said that, and having emphasized the fact that I believe my

colleague has drawn our attention to a number of areas that need to be

addressed, I want to say that I have confidence that when we get to

committee stage we will indeed be able to deal with those things. I am

sure that the minister will share the concerns we present and at least

give us assurances and satisfactory answers to demonstrate that either

the bill is inadequate or that there is somehow a misunderstanding on

our part. I throw that challenge too.

What I want to touch on now, though, is another dimension of the

bill. It causes me great concern, and I see it in a number of pieces of

legislation that have come before this House. It is what I would

loosely call "concentration of power." I am one, Mr. Speaker, who is

suspicious of concentration of power. The fewer the hands that hold the

power, the more suspicious I become.

What I'm referring to specifically in this bill is the area of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the powers held by, that office. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as we all know, means cabinet; it means

nothing else.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that almost everybody who has

examined our system of parliamentary democracy in the last Lord knows

how many years has come to the conclusion that perhaps the system no

longer works very well. They argue whether the Legislature and the

legislative branch of government is indeed any longer relevant. Thus,

we have an abundance of books with titles like "The Myth of

Parliament," and "Has the House of Commons Outlived its Usefulness?" I

think I'm making those up, Mr. Speaker, but there are titles something

like that that escape my memory.

The point that all of those authors are making is that what we

really have in Canada today, and throughout all the provincial

jurisdictions, is government by cabinet. To a degree, of course, that

is an inevitable conclusion of our system of government. Obviously a

majority government has a considerable amount of room to manoeuvre, as

it should. My fear is simply that we are encouraging that process and

compounding the problem when — apparently as a matter of course — we

decide to give powers to cabinet, powers that I think in some cases are

simply not called for.

I want to suggest to the Minister of Environment that he and his

government have a direct and clear obligation to the people of this

province to declare, in no uncertain terms, precisely why we have a new

section to the Waste Management Act assigning to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. powers that seem to be beyond the

normal scope; powers, moreover, that seem to have a special dimension;

and beyond that, powers that seem to be beyond appeal — in short,

powers that do not require any kind of answer, that do not require any

kind of explanation. I'm referring specifically to

section 4 of the

bill. In the amended version of the act that will be

section

3.3,"Powers of Lieutenant Governor in Council." As I say, I think one

simply needs to read a brief passage from it to see clearly the point

I'm making. Again, I hasten to point out that if I'm wrong here I will

of course be the first to retract my comment.

What I see here is an incredible concentration of power. Note that

one of the phrases is one we've heard a great deal in the last few

weeks, a phrase that was repeated with regular passion and consistency

all during the debate on Bill 19: namely, "the public interest." Let me

read the

section to you: "Where the Lieutenant Governor in Council" —

i.e. cabinet — "considers it to be necessary in the public interest, he

shall have and may exercise, in respect of wastes, all the powers that

a director or district director may exercise under this Act in respect

of wastes, and without limiting the generality of this the Lieutenant

Governor in Council may, after any consultations he considers

desirable, issue permits for the construction and operation of

facilities for the management, treatment, disposal, recycling, storage

and destruction of wastes or for the introduction of wastes into the

environment."

Obviously a considerable amount of power is vested then in cabinet.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It goes on in subsection (2): "In acting under this section, the

Lieutenant Governor in Council may act in a manner he considers to be

in the public interest and" — I want to emphasize this part — "shall

not be limited to the considerations that would be taken into account

by a director, district director, officer or manager." It shall not be

limited to the considerations that govern the affairs and activities of

those others. That causes me concern. If there is a simple and clear

explanation, I would invite the minister to provide one, as I'm sure he

will.

I also want to draw attention to a third section. My third

contention is simply that this power is not only powerful, not only

vested in one person, but also seems to be beyond the reach of appeal.

Let me quote from clause 11 of the bill, which adds a new subsection to

section 26 of the Waste Management Act. The new subsection reads as

follows: "Nothing in this section" — that is, the appeals

section — "11

shall be construed as applying in respect of a decision made by the

Lieutenant Governor in Council." All of the professionals, all others

in the field, are apparently in the position where they make decisions,

but there is some recourse to appeal. To judge from this document, when

the cabinet makes a decision, there is no appeal. I don't think that is

either desirable or necessary.

It seems to me that the challenge to the minister and his ministry

is to demonstrate and to justify, in the course of either the debate on

second reading or at committee stage, why that kind of power is

necessary. I would offer that observation to the minister. I hope he

can provide me and my colleagues the kinds of assurances we are asking.

MR. SPEAKER: I must advise the House, under standing orders the minister closes debate.

[ Page

2043 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The House will recognize that there is a

great diversity of procedures in the amendments to the Waste Management

Act, and probably we're going to spend an awful lot of time on

committee because of the variety in this bill.

At the outset, for my critic, the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), for the most

part I think her

argument, which was well researched and well stated, makes the case for

such amendments to the Waste Management Act. I would commend to the

members that this is an amendment act, and therefore to read it in its

fullness you have to read it as amendments to the current Waste

Management Act.

I would say, in general, that the concerns you've identified really

are the reason for us bringing in this type of legislation which deals

with special or, as you say, toxic hazardous wastes. Maybe the term is

a euphemism, but nevertheless it's a common term in environmental

parlance: special wastes are toxic and hazardous, for the most part.

The act had to come in. You expressed a concern that the process was

backwards. The process is not backwards, Madam Member. We must have the

statute before we can proceed with regulations. We have the draft

regulations now. Have you seen them? They've been in place since March

12. That's just part of the review. There will be further regulations

issued by the committee and by the ministry. These regulations were not

formed in a vacuum. They were formed after consultation with CCREM,

which is the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers.

They were vetted very craftily with the federal government, and they

are regulations that set a Canadian standard. We make no apology for

them. If there are some changes in regulations that have to be made, of

course that can be done and prescribed. There is no reason why we

should see everything cast in stone and not be able to change our

regulations. It's just part of the business of government to have

regulations in place and have the ability to change them from time to

time as the need arises.

In the principle part of this debate, I am going to have to advise

you that philosophically the government of British Columbia — at least,

this government — is opposed to intervener funding. We will not

consider that type of process. I know your party and your philosophy

may disagree. The government of British Columbia in this case and in

many other cases, whether it be the Utilities Commission or whatever

where we have a hearing process, is not prepared to fund interveners.

If interveners have a legitimate case to make, they can make it to the

hearing process, and if they wish to hire experts, they will have to

find the money to hire those experts.

I'm a bit concerned that you slighted Dr. Boyes as if he had no

opinion on this and was really not an expert. Dr. Boyes is a scientist

of some note in the province of British Columbia. He headed the Cancer

Research Society for many years and is a superb investigator and

researcher. To say that we're putting him in a tough spot or that he is

not capable of handling his duties I find unacceptable. Maybe I

misunderstood you; I will review the Blues later, and if I have then

I'll take back what I've said, but it seems to me that you did not have

confidence in Dr. Boyes or his committee and the excellent work they

could do.

Point of order? Well, it's not really, but go ahead.

[4:00]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley on a point of order.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I just want to make it very clear that the

minister is misinterpreting my comments about Dr. Boyes. I never for a

moment said that he was not capable of the task. I said that the

government put him in a very difficult position and that the government

should support him to do the job he wants to do. That was no aspersion

on Dr. Boyes or the commission, and I made it very clear in all of my

comments about the commission that they're well-meaning people trying

to do a good job.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not really a point of order. However,

we'll all review the Blues and, as I've said, if I am incorrect, I'll

make that comment in the committee stage.

I don't believe Dr. Boyes and his committee have an impossible task.

I believe they have elected to enter this task with the assurance of

knowing that the government is solidly behind them. I've met the

committee; they're most responsible people. I'm following the work that

they've done. I'm following the hearings that they've had, and I'm

aware of the many submissions that have come to them, both from

industry and from the public. I'm quite confident that they're going to

carry out a very difficult task with considerable expertise, and do a

superb job on behalf of the people and the government of British

Columbia.

The other concern — and I guess we'll philosophically be opposed on

this one for ever and ever — is that it's not only this facility, or

the facilities that may arise out of this, but other operations of

government.... We are not concerned with having a private sector firm

operate such a facility when it comes into place. I have no concern

about that. They have proved to be successful in other areas.

I advise the member that I'll be visiting Swan Hills in September to

look at the Alberta project. Dr. Boyes's committee has already been

there. I think they will officially open on September 17, and we'll

have to see how they proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as the member indicated, and as I indicated earlier,

this bill, because of the variety of the things that it does and

because of the detail that's contained from

section to section, will be

better discussed in committee stage, where we can have some

back-and-forth debate and where we can get into the technical aspects

of each and every section. So I will, at this point, welcome committee

debate on this bill, and now move second reading of Bill 38.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Pelton

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Peterson

Veitch

McCarthy

Strachan

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

Weisgerber

Jansen

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Vant

Campbell

Long

Huberts

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

[ Page 2044 ]

NAYS — 20

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann,

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

Bill 38, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pleasure

today to introduce this amendment to the Adoption Act, which will

provide for the establishment of a passive adoption reunion registry.

It's the first time that the act has been amended, I am told, since

1920, and we are the second-to-last province to establish an adoption

registry. It's a move that I think will be very popular with people.

The reaction that we have had to the request for submissions last fall

has been overwhelmingly in favour and very positive. There is a

tremendous public interest in British Columbia for an adoption

disclosure registry, but up until this moment the act prevents the

sharing of confidential information.

Last fall, cabinet approved the establishment of a registry, and in

preparation we asked the public for submissions and for opinions on the

act. I'm pleased to say that we received over a thousand submissions

regarding an adoption disclosure registry, and the response was

overwhelmingly in favour of the establishment of such a registry.

The proposed legislation allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

by regulation to establish a registry allowing birth parents and adult

adoptees to register an interest in contacting the other party; also

the release of identifying information to adult adoptees or birth

parents where consent of both parties has been registered.

This legislation is limited to adoptions completed in British

Columbia. The registry will work as follows: specific details regarding

the mechanics of the registry will be defined by regulations; the

Ministry of Health, vital statistics division, will administer the

registry. Concomitant amendments to the Vital Statistics Act are being

introduced to enable the vital statistics division to proceed with the

registry. The Ministry of Health will initiate a public information

campaign, which will include newspaper advertisements and pamphlets.

[4:15]

The following issues were raised by the opposition critic on May 29, when he

requested that the minister give time for response from interest groups. Responses

to the public discussion paper were received from 52 agencies, organizations

and societies; 17 were native organizations, including Parent Finders of B.C.,

Adoptive Parents' Association of B.C., B.C. Federation of Foster Parents,

B.C. Civil Liberties Association, United Native Nations, Native Court worker

and Counselling Association of British Columbia, and the social policy advisory

committee to the B.C. Tribal Forum. The time allowed for the review was extended

from two months to four months.

Another concern that was voiced was that we amend the Adoption Act

to ensure at the time of adoption the band manager and chiefs would be

notified. Specific details of the registry will be addressed through

the introduction of regulations. Currently, the Family and Child

Service Act requires that the band be notified when a status native

Indian child comes into care. For those native children who are adopted

when permanent wards, the band will have been notified of the

superintendent's intention to apply for an order under the Family and

Child Service Act to undertake planning for that child.

Children are placed for adoption under the Adoption Act at the

relinquishing parents' request. It would be discriminatory to native

Indian relinquishing parents to require that the band be advised of

their decision to place their child for adoption. It is the right of

the relinquishing parents, regardless of race, to decide who will be

informed of their intention to relinquish their children for adoption.

A few more points on the type of registry, Mr. Speaker. Several

factors influenced the decision to introduce a passive registry. We

wished to benefit from the experience of other jurisdictions and found

that several of the provinces have passive registries — and those are

Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Alberta. Several provinces that now

have active registries introduced passive registries first.

A passive registry protects the right to privacy for individuals who

do not wish to register. While the majority of respondents wished an

active registry, there is no way of knowing whether they represented

the interests of adult adoptees or birth parents, and whether an equal

proportion supported an active registry. An active registry might

favour the wishes and interests of one group over another. If, however,

over time there are indications that we would be better served by an

active registry, the passive registry provides a strong framework from

which to build.

In addition, the following issues may be raised. The legislation at

the moment is limited to birth parents and adult adoptees. The question

is asked: what about siblings and other natural relatives? The

legislation has been drafted to ensure that there is no potential for a

breach of confidentiality, and recognizes that the right to privacy of

the birth parent or parents and adopted adult supersedes the right of

other relatives to obtain information. In cases where the birth parent

or parents or adopted adult have died, the registered birth parent or

registered adult adoptee would be notified of the death.

The Vital Statistics Amendment bill contains an amendment to the

registration of adoption,

section 9, which will allow the parents of

birth to be substituted by the parents of adoption on the birth

registration records. This may be perceived as a falsification of

records and as more discriminatory than the current practice.

Currently, vital statistics maintains a registration of live births

which identifies both the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

Adopted persons cannot obtain a copy of this record, because of the

confidential information regarding the birth parents. Instead, adopted

persons receive a certificate of birth which contains no information

about parentage. The Ministry of Health views this practice as

discriminatory and proposes altering the registration to show the

adoptive parents as the birth

[ Page 2045 ]

parents. A separate set of records would be maintained to identify the birth parents.

Mr. Speaker, that puts the technicalities of the bill on the record.

Let me say again that the response from the majority of British

Columbians has been overwhelmingly in favour of what we are doing.

There is, of course, a very small minority group — less than 4 percent

of the respondents — that feels that nothing should be done with the

adoption registry. There is another minority group — I know not the

size of it, but it's larger than the first — that feels that we should

go much further and implement an active adoption registry. However,

after much consideration we felt that the passive registry was the way

to go, and if indeed in a few years time it is felt that an active

registry would better serve the province, then we have taken that first

giant step, and we have the mechanism in place to go from there easily

to an active registry. That is something that some future legislature

and/or minister will have to decide.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close my opening remarks on this bill

and listen to other members who will certainly wish to speak on it.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I find myself rising to comment on

this bill with a great deal of ambivalent feelings that I have to come

to terms with. On the one hand, I commend the minister for taking what

I think is a significant and important step at this time toward a much

more appropriate set of circumstances for people involved with

adoption. On the other hand, I feel — given the information that I have

received and even reviewing the information that the minister just gave

to us with regard to respondents to the cabinet request for information

— that very clearly the preponderance of information and of desire on

the part of those responding would be toward a more active registry.

I do recognize that I am not privy to the information the minister

is privy to, but there is no argument when he says that there were over

1,000 submissions and that the vast majority of those favoured a

registry. It is difficult to break down how many of those would have

been favouring a passive registry and how many favouring an active

registry, when the minister and I are both well aware that we don't

simply have one definition of a passive registry over here and one

definition of an active registry over there. What we have is a spectrum.

Having read over the legislation — not only the act that we are

dealing with at this time, but also the Vital Statistics Act as well as

the omnibus bill, all of which relate to different aspects of this

particular issue — it becomes very clear to me that the minister, in

bringing forward this legislation at this time, is doing so in a very

cautious way. He is taking a cautious step; admittedly, it's a step in

the right direction, a step which I appreciate, but it is a cautious

step. I believe that the vast majority of those people who are very

interested in this issue would agree with me that this is far too

cautious a step at this time.

The minister has pointed out that we are one of the last two

jurisdictions to move toward some kind of adoption registry. I think

that it would behoove us at this time to be far more imaginative and

far more creative and far more responsive to the kinds of submissions

that have been received.

I want to say, however, that I am very pleased to hear the minister

say that he too sees this as an initial step. I find that a hopeful

sign, because one of the points that I have been intending to make in

saying that we on this side of the House will be supporting this bill

with some reluctance is that we do so seeing it at the very least as a

step toward other necessary and obvious steps that need to be made.

So I am pleased to know that the minister is of that mindset. I

think that is a hopeful sign, and I would hope that that would be

expressed as a hopeful sign to those many thousands of British

Columbians who are out there and who have expressed their concerns.

Many of them, having expressed their concerns to the minister through

submissions and as individuals, have also contacted me personally and

expressed their concerns.

I think that this is perhaps just emerging as an issue that, in the

mind of the media and the public, is being seen for what it is. It is a

sleeping giant. I have not seen studies that would indicate the numbers

of families of British Columbians impacted in some way by adoption. But

given the people I have been talking to, I would guess that well over

80 percent, and possibly over 90 percent, of British Columbians would

be able to say that their lives have been touched by the reality of

adoption, either very directly or as a member of an extended family. I

think, therefore, that this issue probably has a lot more attention

being paid to it than any of us realize.

I was talking to such an individual, who has had a great deal of

personal angst over many years, going back to early childhood, in terms

of seeking a sibling. She told me that she had heard the comments that

the minister made on television yesterday afternoon — I was not able to

see that program — and that the minister had expressed a concern that

by taking this cautious step at this time, the government was being

protective of those people who might misuse the availability of a more

active type of registry.

This individual told me that from her information, the average

person searching for parents or a sibling is 32 years old. Mostly women

are searching. Also, I would agree with her that, given the people who

have been in touch with me, these are by and large sensitive,

intelligent people, and that we are not looking at a block of people

who are likely to go out and seek to cause some abuse of a registry

making this kind of contact available.

We are dealing here with people who really care. If it wasn't for

the fact that they care about themselves, about others, about their

history, about their roots and about their health, those who might be

frivolous would simply not be getting involved. One woman I spoke to

told me that last year she spent $2,000 in long-distance charges, just

trying to carry out her own adoption search and to try to make some

kind of contact; reaching out in the hope that she would be able to

connect with people who are members of her historic family.

We are dealing with two realities in terms of time when we are

dealing with this issue. I am not sure that this reality is reflected

satisfactorily in the legislation. One reality is the reality of

pre-1987; the other reality is that of post-1987. It is very important

that we do everything we can to facilitate that search entered into by

those who did not have the availability of a registry prior to this

time. But we also need to be thinking of those children yet unborn and

those families who will obviously be related in future situations, and

trying to develop the kind of availability of access that will be

helpful to them.

[Mr. Pefton in the chair.]

[ Page 2046 ]

I would like to say that I have in my hand a copy of Bill M210,

Adoption Amendment Act, 1985, which was on the order paper, presented

by Rosemary Brown. I would like at this time to acknowledge the work of

Rosemary Brown and others who have participated in the process leading

up to the legislation we are looking at today. I see some members

nodding their heads and hear other members making comments. I have said

before and I will say again that this issue is best served on a basis

of trying to build consensus, rather than on an adversarial approach.

That's why I said earlier that I am experiencing some ambivalent

feelings when I say we are going to support this legislation.

[4:30]

If you look at Rosemary Brown's bill, I think you will see that it

goes much further and builds in the safeguards that the minister was

expressing concern about when he was speaking on television yesterday.

I'll get onto more examples of this later; I think there are such

resources as the bill that Rosemary Brown presented and those in other

jurisdictions that we can learn from.

Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that when the government requested

submissions, they asked for people to state their preference for a

passive registry, an active registry or staying with the status quo. I

want to reiterate that in requesting that, passive and active were not

defined so clearly that people would be able to express their desire

for a system that might fit somewhere on the continuum between status

quo and a very active type of registry. If we had recognized that or if

the government had recognized that in seeking information, it might

have come up with a clearer kind of answer.

There is somewhat of an example in this process, as worthwhile as

this consultation has been, of the kind of thing that we have been

experiencing with this government, which is consultation prior to the

drafting of the document, but then very little time to respond

effectively and creatively to the document once it's drafted. Indeed,

Mr. Speaker, we have three documents, and it is very challenging to

take the Adoption Amendment Act, the Vital Statistics Act and the

omnibus bill and try to put all the pieces of that together in one

package and in a sense to peel away the different layers of the onion

until one finds out what is really going on there.

We know that the act that was passed this morning, which gives the

government the right to alter birth records, is tied into this, and to

impact on any one part of this package would be to slow this process

and perhaps not have in place the legislation, the small step that's

being taken at this time. But I want to say that if I am a member of

government when the NDP forms government a few years from now, I will

certainly be working very hard to have that

section of the bill that

was passed this morning repealed. It is unnecessary, and in a way,

while the general thrust of Bill 26 is a small step in the right

direction, that portion of the Vital Statistics Act was a fairly major

step in a backward direction. I regret that the government has found it

necessary to take that action.

I would like to say that in the spirit of open government, I would still hope

we would see the minister follow through on the commitment he made a few moments

ago to listen to the concerns of those people who are actively involved in the

adoption process, the adoption organizations — organizations such as the B.C.

Association of Social Workers, Parent Finders, Adoptees in Motion, the Adoptive

Parents' Association and the various native Indian organizations that have

submitted briefs to the government — and make those necessary changes that I

believe they'll be getting a great deal of feedback on, at the earliest

possible opportunity, so that we don't have to wait until however many days

it is — 900 days — to do it ourselves. We would hope the government would see

fit to do that before then and thus make life more worthwhile and more enriching

for the people involved.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: It's 929 days. All right.

I want to make a comment about the point the minister made with

regard to individual rights and native Indian concerns. He makes a

valid point, but one can also make another valid point on the other

side of that issue. The other side of the point is the issue of native

cultural identity, and the integrity of that kind of decision being

left to the native communities themselves. Perhaps that opens up a

philosophical difference in the way our society is going and the native

society itself, for that is a more collective society in its roots and

its traditions. It is seeking to perpetuate the kind of collectivism,

the kind of sense by which if one of us is hurting, all of us are

hurting. Within our own social fabric in Canada we seem to be moving

more and more toward individualism. I agree that it's important to

protect individual rights, but we have to weigh in the balance the

protecting of group rights; not only group rights, but the very

positive concerns that native Indian groups have to retain their

heritage and pass that on to those who are not able to speak up for

themselves at the time adoptions take place.

I also find, since this act is being opened at this time after 67

years, that opportunities were missed. One was the opportunity to put

into legislation a means of supporting native Indian services that

would facilitate the achieving of their goals with regard to the whole

adoptive process. Having been an adoptive parent myself of a child of

native Indian ancestry, and having lived for five years in native

Indian communities, I've become very much aware of some things that the

native Indian culture could teach us about the adoption process: the

ways in which children are welcomed and feel at home in other homes;

the ways in which children are viewed as a part of the total community;

the way that that enhances a feeling of being included and being loved,

of being part of that community. I think this was an opportunity. The

minister has said that we could well open the Adoption Act again,

perhaps next year; he didn't say next year, but I'm saying that. I take

hope in the words of the minister that we might be opening it again

next year to include that which would facilitate this process for

native Indian people.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that there's really no

legislation that I'm aware of in present British Columbia adoption law

which regulates private adoptions, and I think it's time to take a look

at that. I know that's opening up another large area, but it is an

expanding area. The statistics are such that a larger and larger

portion of adoptions is being handled by private means, and I think

that needs to be looked at in terms of some properly regulated

legislation.

The minister mentioned many of the submissions that were received. I

know that in the submissions of Parent Finders, the B.C. Association of

Social Workers, the adoptive parents.... In the opinion of many that

I've spoken to, there was a hope and a desire that counselling services

would be built into our Adoption Act so that there would be the means

whereby highly trained people developing a specialty in this field

would be able to help to facilitate the most useful and worthwhile

result once an adoption search has begun. I

[ Page

2047 ]

regret that at this time we're not seeing a process

whereby that might happen. The term used in the report by Dean Ralph

Garber is "interpretive counselling." We need people who can do this

with sensitivity and discretion, and who can help with providing the

information that is needed. When we have an active registry, I think

that will be necessary.

The minister will certainly have an opportunity to respond, but it's

my assumption that one of the things happening here is that we have a

government which is very tightly controlled by the Premier's office. I

believe that unfortunately this process stifles creativity. I would

think it would be very frustrating for the minister and for the members

of his staff to be working within a ministry that needs to be creative.

My, how the people of British Columbia need that ministry to be

creative! I believe that the individuals who work there, at both the

political and the public service level, have to deal with circumstances

that stifle creativity because of budget constraints. When we see this

legislation being set up without counselling services put in place, we

see an example of this stifled creativity in full force. I regret that

very much.

I would think that if we were able to have such service, the end

result would be that it would save taxpayers' money. I believe — and

I'm not a disciple of Norman Vincent Peale — that people who have a

good sense of self-worth and self-esteem are people who are able to be

more productive, and able to contribute more to the body politic, to

the well-being of our society. I think that a few dollars spent in

providing the kind of support services that would be needed in just

such a situation as this would give many benefits, many dividends, in

terms of the quality of life, and indeed, of the kind of creativity and

productivity that we could expect from these people. I think that is

something to be considered.

The last point is that an education component is needed in a really

responsible adoption registry process. As I said before, I believe that

the lives of 80 percent, at the very least, of our populace are touched

by adoption. I believe it's very important that we have education about

adoption happening out in our communities, and I believe that this

could have been done in a very helpful way in this process.

I want to again commend to all members of the House, and to any who

may be interested in this debate — and I think a lot of people are —

the report of Dean Ralph Garber, dean of social services at the

University of Toronto. He filed this report for the government of

Ontario. I was going to read some of the material in it, but I don't

think that's necessary at this time, Mr. Speaker. But he has given a

definitive study of adoption, and perhaps I could read a little bit

where he refers to costs, because I think this government —

understandably — is concerned about what it might cost to have

counselling services, an education component and the type of

infrastructure needed by an active registry. He says, referring to

Ontario:

[4:45]

"A two-thirds increase, or a total of 10 percent of all

eligible adoptees, would be reflected in 2,800 additional requests for identifying

information in 1986-91. This compares with a request rate of 6 percent in the

previous six-year period. The opportunity extended to other birth relatives

might result in another 1,000 requests for identifying information. "The

distribution of responsibility in responding to requests for information among

the 50 or more societies and the register, over a number of years, makes the

achievement of the task possible. Because of the recommendations for mandatory

counselling and post-adoption services, and because of the additional service

demands, more staff resources will be required. The number of requests for information

could be expected to drop in the 1990s because of the sharp decline in the total

number of adoptions since 1973."

It would be interesting to know if that is reflected here in B.C. too.

"The decline has been accompanied by a significant rise

in step-parent and relative adoptions, as well as an appreciable increase in

the number of older children and special needs children who have been adopted.

Most, if not all, of these adoptees would have had access to their origins."

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I was talking to an individual this morning who

told me that in trying to carry out her search, she found herself doing things

that she never thought she would do. For instance, she wrote to all MLAs, and

she kept asking me for reassurance: "Do you think I'm silly? Do you

think I'm foolish to be doing this?" She handed me a file with copies

of all the letters that she had received from MLAs — and she really appreciated

that, although she wished that more had responded to her letter. And then she

showed me something, and she said: "Do you think this is silly?" She

showed me this T-shirt, which says: "Wanted: 'Jolyon,' male adoptee,

age 33/34, born in Vancouver" — the date — "description unknown, tall,

possibly adopted by a Victoria pharmacist...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, but exhibits are not allowed during debate in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could try it on.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I could put this shirt on.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point of order is well taken.

I think persons such as the individual who spoke to me today and who

sat in the gallery for a long period of time today are the people who

need reassurance. These people need to be reminded that what they are

about is right on. They need to be reminded that they are valued

people; they're special people in our society. They are people that we

are proud to know are British Columbians; and perhaps because of the

circumstances that they have gone through, all of us can learn

something about the meaning of the birthing process of adoption.

MR. BRUCE: I won't be nearly as long as anybody else in the

House here this afternoon in respect to this matter, but I would like

to just pass a few comments. First of all let me say how pleased I am

as an individual, as a member that has had some involvement in the

adoption process.... Certainly as the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has mentioned, many, many people

throughout this province have been touched by the adoption process,

either in the direct family instance or the indirect.

I'd like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward this

Adoption Amendment Act to the House and having it put today. I think

it's a step in the right direction. I can certainly appreciate that

there are those in society and through the province here today who

perhaps would have liked to see the amendment go even further. But

there are also those in society in the province that have some concern

in regard to

[ Page 2048 ]

the manner and the way in which the registry would actually work.

It's good that we take one small step at a time. If it's found that

we can move into the other aspects, be it an active registry, or be it

also extended to include other members in the family, then so be it;

but it is not to minimize the steps that we are taking here today as a

government, that we are taking in the Legislature here as people

representing all throughout the province, in bringing forward and

passing this amendment. I'm pleased to hear the opposition say that

they will be voting in favour, although they may have some

reservations, which is to be expected, I suppose, in the role that one

must carry, while overall supporting what the government is undertaking

in the amendment and the manner in which it has been brought forward.

There are many people who have been touched. I shared with this

House not too many weeks ago a particular instance in my constituency

of a mother and a son that had long been looking for each other, not

having the opportunity of knowing that each was in search of the other;

and how emotional and how much that can mean to not only the

individuals involved directly but the extended families and friends

when such an eventuality is achieved of both mother and son and family

finding one another. For the government to appreciate and understand

the great desire....

I would also concur with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam that

through the province today, although we may not have seen great

headlines in any of the major newspapers or on radio, and so on, to the

same extent that other pieces of legislation may cause, certainly

throughout the communities of this province there is very genuine and

deep interest as to the steps and the process of the Adoption Amendment

Act. I think today is definitely a very positive day indeed for the

province and for the ministry involved in bringing forward such an

amendment, a good-news amendment for the people of B.C.

MR. GUNO: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I had not

intended to get up and speak on this bill, but some concerns have come

to light that I wanted to address. However, like my colleague, I do

intend to support this bill. I think it's long overdue and I think it's

an issue that we should give our attention to.

I wanted to echo some of the things that my colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam said about the adoption of Indian children. I

think that's a fairly serious issue for the native people in British

Columbia. I can appreciate the concern of the minister relating to the

preservation of individual rights where, if we were to disclose against

the wishes of the relinquishing parent, that would be discriminatory,

but I have to support my colleague here with regard to Indian adopted

children; that we should look at it in a more fundamental context to

appreciate the fact that there is a difference in values, in terms of

recognizing that the native people in British Columbia have a more

collective sense of identity, more of a sense of community which they

want to retain.

Understandably, there has been, a lot of concern about the practices

in other jurisdictions where there is what has been called almost a

wholesale adoption of Indian children outside the jurisdiction, to

disappear and no longer be part of the community. That's a genuine fear

of many native people. I would really urge the minister to consider

that part of the submissions made to him by various Indian

organizations and consider adding a provision later on, if not this

time around, in at least having some provision to notify the band

council.

As the minister indicated, this is being done under the Family and

Child Service Act. I think extending that to this bill would not be

that much of a step, so I would support that. I just wanted to bring

that caveat to this bill. Other than that, I think it's long overdue,

and I support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is informed that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I will keep my closing remarks as short as possible. I want to address a few of the concerns brought up by the members.

First of all, I want to address some of the remarks made by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) regarding the

Premier's office and the fact that he and, it seems, the members on

that side of the House perceive that the Premier's office is stifling

innovation of ministers and ministries. Just let me assure the member

and this House that that is anything but the truth. I have never worked

for a man who is more open and receptive to suggestions than the

present Premier. I'm sure that.... [Applause.] I was going to say I am

sure that my colleagues will back me up in that statement.

Then he went on to say that we were constrained by budget

constraints. That is true, and I think that's true of any ministry and

any minister: budget considerations are always there and we always have

to be cognizant of them. But by the same token, this ministry in this

year's budget has done very well. We've brought in some much-needed

increases and expanded programs that we thought were necessary.

Some of the innovative moves and things that we're looking at

pertain to the disabled and the employables. The programs that we're

bringing in there — computerized programs to get employable people

matched up with employment — are working very well, by the way. We have

the JobTrac program in place. This Adoption Act amendment is another

case where I took it to my colleagues in cabinet, including the

Premier, and convinced them that this was long overdue. There is a

program that I'm working on to address the problem of street kids,

specifically in our major city, Vancouver. So innovation is not

inhibited in this government, Mr. Member, and I just want to make that

point.

I know that you said it's a very cautious step and maybe a small

step, but a step in the right direction. I think that after 67 years

it's a giant step in the right direction. I thank the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) for his comments, and I agree with him

that it's a very positive day for British Columbia.

I appreciate your comments and those of the member for Atlin (Mr.

Guno) regarding native Indian people. I don't pretend to know the

native Indian culture as well as either of you. However, I have had

much contact of late with native Indian people, being on that committee

of cabinet and through the input that we've had in the way of

submissions to this bill. I still come back to the point, though, that

the relinquishing parent as an individual should have the right to give

up the information of which we speak.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I appreciate the comments you made about a collective society, and it may differ from ours. But I still come back to

[ Page

2049 ]

the fundamental rights of the individual. I know

it's something that we could talk about for a long time, and I agree

with you also, Mr. Member, that there are good arguments to be made on

both sides of this. But somewhere a decision has to be made, and we

have made the decision that the rights of the individual are paramount

in this issue.

I too, like you, have heard many touching stories from adoptive

parents, adopting parents and adoptive children. Since I asked for

submissions, I have heard many touching stories regarding this issue. I

have heard adopting parents say to me: "If you institute an adoption

registry, you are breaking the contract with us, a contract that we

made when we adopted children." On the other hand, I have heard the

arguments that you put forward that we are not going far enough and

that it should be an active registry. So I think I've heard all the

points on both sides of the argume