1990 Legislative Session: 4th 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, JULY 26, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 11537

Georgia Basin Commission Act (Bill M245). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

An Act Establishing Multicultural Heritage Language Education

(Bill M246). Mr. Jones

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

Builders Lien Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11538

Tabling Documents –– 11538

Oral Questions

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Scramblers for ministers' cellular telephones. Mr. Serwa –– 11539

Island Hall liquor licence. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Cruise-ship passengers in Vancouver. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11539

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Sihota –– 11539

Mr. Williams

Auditor-general's report. Mr. Williams –– 11540

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 11540

Pollution on White Rock beaches. Mr. Reid –– 11540

Purchase of computer equipment. Mr. Lovick –– 11540

Arsenic and lead levels in Wells area residents. Mr. Sihota –– 11540

Lifting of Queen of Burnaby. Mr. Sihota –– 11541

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 11541

Coast guard vessel in Prince Rupert. Mr. Miller –– 11541

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11542

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Miller

Mr. Clark

Ms. Cull

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Jones

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11549

Mr. Williams

Mr. Miller

Mr. Cashore

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 54).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Third reading

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 76).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 46).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11555

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 67).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11556

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 73). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11557

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Third reading

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 11563

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 11564

Indian Self Government Enabling Act (Bill 64). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 11564

Mr. G. Hanson

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act (No – 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11564

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Miller

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 11566

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11567

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Savage

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11569

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Third reading

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 66). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11572

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Mercier

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Peterson

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 11594

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) –– 11596

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Parks estimates. (Hon. Mr. Messmer)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 11602

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Vant

Mr. Perry

Mr. Serwa

Mr. G. Janssen

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 3: ombudsman –– 11618

Mr. Cashsore

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome two constituents from Ladner. On

behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, would

this assembly please welcome Nick and Carol Mellish.

MR. BLENCOE :

On behalf of my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. G.

Hanson), I would like to welcome some people who work in our community

office in Victoria, which is an extremely successful office and serves

the people of Victoria extremely well. Without these people, Mr.

Speaker, this office could not do its job. I'd like to introduce to the

House today: Beth and Tom Loring, Sue Stroud, Doug Lewis, Bruce Fog and

Robert Arnold. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, as the previous member said, every constituency must have

very hard-working and dedicated people, and I want to introduce four

dynamic senior ladies from my constituency. Three of them are with the

Kiwanis Golden "K" Club, and the other lady is one of those

hard-working community workers. I have with me today from White Rock:

Mary Fournier, Gladys Newell, Ivy Bryant and Islay Baril. Would the

House please make these ladies welcome.

MR. PERRY :

Today I have the pleasure of introducing in the gallery Leona Sparrow

of the Musqueam Indian band in Vancouver, who is a constituent of mine.

She is also a law student at UBC and an authority on the aboriginal

rights of the Musqueam people. She is with her friends Susan Knox and

Danica Knox. I can spot them up there now, and I'd like the House to

make them welcome.

I'd also like the House to welcome Susan

Moger of our research staff, who has been very helpful to me as the

Health critic this year. I'd like to express my appreciation to her at

this time.

MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, today I'd

like the House to welcome visitors from Israel. I'm very pleased to

introduce Mr. and Mrs. Shargil, their son Yoaav and their daughter

Michal, who are in the gallery today.

MR. ROSE : Mr.

Speaker, visiting the House for the first time in question period are

six or seven very important members of our research staff. They spend

all their time developing penetrating questions to put the government

off balance — unbalanced as they usually are. They are too numerous to

mention, but I hope the House can welcome them for their first but not

last visit.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In the gallery today are the parents of two of our

Pages. I'd like the House to please welcome Jim and Kathy Hartshorne.

Mr.

Speaker, I know that all members of the House will join me in thanking

the very hard-working staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms. They spend a lot

of hours in here working for us, and I know their toils are much

appreciated.

We would especially like to wish a happy

retirement and Godspeed to two of their members. Dan Currie, who spent

25 years in the RCAF and retired as a major, joined the

Sergeant-at-Arms staff in 1985. Ed Zwolak spent 28 years, between 1951

and '79, with the PPCLI and joined the Sergeant-at-Arms staff in 1980.

I know every member in this House — including yourself, Mr. Speaker — wishes them a very happy retirement, and thank-you for the many years of public service. [Applause.]

MR. LOVICK :

That thunderous response to the government House Leader's welcome and

introduction will demonstrate that the expression of gratitude is

unanimous, and on this side of the House, we certainly want to echo

that.

I want to point out in the gallery today a visitor

from Nanaimo, Mr. David Hagel. Mr. Hagel is the operator-owner of the

Nanaimo Skills Training Centre and was here earlier today with some 15

students who visited the Legislature and had a brief introduction to

its activities. I would ask the members of this chamber to please join

me and the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) in welcoming Mr.

Hagel.

MR. PERRY : In the spirit of the concluding

hours of this distinguished Legislature, I'd like to acknowledge a

famous quotation. In the latest Bartlett's it is rendered something

like this: "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach." We

acknowledge the contributions that the parliamentary dining-room has

made to those of us from out of town in providing us a home away from

home and keeping us happy while we are here. I think all members can

join me in expressing our appreciation to the dining-room.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Chair undertakes to send a specific message on behalf of all

members at the end of every session to the people who work in that

facility.

Presenting Reports

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations

for the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament, respecting the

Builders Lien Act. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS : Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

[ Page 11538 ]

MR. CHALMERS : I move that the report be adopted. In doing so, I would like to make a few brief remarks.

The

Builders Lien Act is certainly not the most exciting piece of

legislation, but it is a very complicated piece of legislation that has

long been in need of overhaul. Throughout the process the committee had

six public hearings throughout the province and received over 275

submissions from interested organizations involved in the construction

industry, from individuals and from corporations in that industry, as

well as from members of the general public.

I'd like to pay

tribute to all who contributed to the process. I'd like to make special

mention of the Clerk of Committees for the work he did in assisting all

of the members. I would like to thank all of the members of the

committee from both sides of the House who contributed — in particular,

if I may mention one, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota). I would like to give my personal thanks to him for his full

cooperation in all the subcommittee meetings and for the contribution

he made in making this happen through the committee system.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

GEORGIA BASIN COMMISSION ACT

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled Georgia Basin Commission Act.

MS. CULL :

This bill recognizes an area of land and water in the southwestern part

of British Columbia as a distinct region called the Georgia Basin. It

establishes the Georgia Basin Commission, which will have the

responsibility of developing policies and procedures to achieve the

reduction of air and water pollution, as well as strategies for

reducing' the Impact of urban growth on the Georgia Basin area.

The

bill requires the commission to consult with local governments and

provincial agencies in British Columbia, as well as with local and

state governments or other commissions having the same mandate in the

state of Washington.

The bill requires local government to

consider policy guidelines developed by the Georgia Basin Commission

when preparing and adopting its community plan.

Bill M245

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.

AN ACT ESTABLISHING MULTICULTURAL

HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Jones presented a bill intituled

An Act Establishing Multicultural Heritage Language Education.

MR. JONES :

British Columbia is one of two areas of Canada that is very poorly

served in terms of support for heritage language education. The purpose

of this bill is to redress that inequity and to recommend that

multiculturalism become a reality in this province, and to provide that

the some 15,000 students who take heritage language courses after

school, on weekends and in the evening be allowed to have their

heritage language incorporated into the school curriculum. This will

help the students of British Columbia who wish to maintain, acquire or

upgrade their knowledge of a heritage language to do so, and it would

also assist immigrants to Canada and to British Columbia adjust to our

school system.

As well as doing all that, this bill would

allow the opportunity for students of all cultures to enrich the lives

that they have, to become aware of and appreciate cultures other than

their own.

This bill provides for a multicultural heritage

aboriginal languages. It's time we recognized the multicultural nature

of our province and encouraged B.C. students to become bilingual, or

multilingual, in languages such as Chinese — meaning Cantonese or Mandarin — Italian, German, Japanese, Punjabi, Hindi, Hebrew, Greek, Portuguese and Spanish.

The absence of language training....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you very much. Please move the motion.

MR. JONES : In closing, it's clear that the absence....

MR. SPEAKER : No, no. Order, please. You may now only move the motion.

Bill

M246 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.

BUILDERS LIEN ACT

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

a bill intituled Builders Lien Act.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, this is an exposure bill for which, as my colleague from

the Okanagan said, we are looking for input from all members of the

industry in spite of the fact there has been significant input.

Bill

52 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.

Mr. Veitch tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the Ministry of Regional

and Economic Development and the 1988-89 annual report of the Ministry

[ Page

11539 ]

Regional Development and Minister of State for Mainland-Southwest.

Hon.

J. Jansen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the

fiscal year 1988-89, the annual report of the British Columbia Health

Care Research Foundation for 1989-90 and the financial statements of

the Medical Services Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31,

Oral Questions

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael). On

July 11, 1990, I asked the minister in this House a question about Mr.

Thomas and the tendering processes established by the PNE and

questioned whether they had been violated. The minister took the

question on notice. Is the minister now prepared to provide an answer

to the question?

SCRAMBLERS FOR MINISTERS'

CELLULAR TELEPHONES

MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Government

Management Services. In view of the confidential nature of discussions

that must be held between cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and other

officials, has the minister decided to purchase scramblers for any

cellular telephones used by government ministers?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

It's true that my ministry does have the responsibility for vehicle

management, so it's an obvious question to ask. I'm sure that the

opposition would agree, as does the leader of the NDP in Manitoba, that

the act of listening to and using private conversations should be, if

it isn't, a criminal act and that those participating should be thrown

in jail.

The answer to the member's question is that each

individual minister will have to make that decision But we are looking

at it at the staff level, in terms of purchasing them at a lower price.

ISLAND HALL LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

On July 9, 1990, I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) a

question with respect to the Financial Disclosure Act dealing with a

question in relation to Island Hall. The minister took that question on

notice. Could the minister advise the House why, to date, he has not

responded to that question?

MR. SPEAKER : The member should continue.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not wish to answer the

question, I have another question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen).

On July 9, 1990, I asked the Minister of Labour in this House a question with

respect to the liquor licence granted to an establishment in Parksville. At

that time the minister indicated he'd be happy to take the question on notice

and bring back the information to the House. Could the minister explain to the

House why we still have not received an answer to that specific question?

CRUISE-SHIP PASSENGERS

IN VANCOUVER

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the Minister of Tourism. I am speaking today on

behalf of Gastown merchants and downtown merchants who are losing

business because of a federal government ruling that whisks the

cruise-ship passengers from the cruise ship to airport customs, without

the benefit of spending any money in the city of Vancouver. I would

like to ask the Minister of Tourism what he is going to do about it,

what word he has had from the federal administration, and when we can

expect to have some relief for those businesses in the city of

Vancouver being denied this business.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I thank the member for the, question. The answer is that our staff have

been working very hard with not only Tourism Vancouver but also Ottawa.

I can tell the member, Mr. Speaker, that there were three senior

officials from U.S. Customs, from Chicago, in Vancouver all Thursday

and Friday. They met with Tourism Vancouver. They reviewed the problem.

They've had a first-hand look at the problem. I have been assured that

they are much more conversant with and cognizant of the problem

following their briefing with Tourism Vancouver than they were at the

beginning. We're very optimistic that we're going to have some positive

response from U.S. Customs within the next week or two.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's good enough. It's a federal

government decision. It's time that the minister was down to Ottawa and

insisted on action on behalf of the business people of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The member is out of order.

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. In June I

asked her a question with respect to the $13 million one-time payment

to BCBC to offset the costs of privatization with respect to Highways.

The minister took the question with respect to that subsidy on notice.

To date, the minister has not afforded this House with an answer to

that specific question. Could the minister advise this House why it is

that she has not provided this House with an answer to that question?

[ Page 11540 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister responsible for privatization. We paid $240,000 more

last year for privatized signs that we didn't receive in the Ministry

of Highways, but earlier the privatization task force showed that the

public company cost us only $25 a sign the previous year. Has the

minister's staff reviewed those differences and added up how much more

privatization is costing now than previously?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Government Management Services is only

responsible for the process and the implementation, and the question

should be more properly put to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).

MR. WILLIAMS : I note

that that question was asked May 9, and the minister advised that she

would be happy to bring the answer back to the House.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS :

This question is to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. The

auditor-general expressed concern about the accounts of the government

and the reporting system of government. On page 19 of his report he

said he would be pleased to assist the government in this process. Will

you accept his offer of assistance to correct the books?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is guilty of selective editing. The fact

of the matter is that the auditor-general did endorse the accounts of

the government and in the ensuing discussion, at the Public Accounts

Committee itself, the auditor-general made rather congratulatory

remarks about the fact that this province leads the way across Canada

in terms of public disclosure.

Furthermore, to the latter part of the question — because it had a couple of facets to it — I

can assure the member that this government has in the past and will

continue in the future to work cooperatively with the auditor-general

to ensure that public information is disclosed honestly and without

bias, fear or favour. We have done that historically. The

auditor-general has confirmed that with his remarks, and I can assure

the House that we will continue to practise in that fashion.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would assure the Minister of Finance that this is a bona fide offer

presented to the Public Accounts Committee of the House. It is there,

and I would urge him to consider the offer of the man that made it.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for the former Expo lands. Are

there any unresolved liabilities still remaining with respect to those

lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, there is one, but it is very near completion.

POLLUTION ON WHITE ROCK BEACHES

MR. REID :

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. I noticed today that

in the White Rock area there is another problem developing about the

pollution on the beaches. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull)

today introduced a bill which deals with the question of pollution on

the beaches. I'm sure some of it must be emanating from the south

Victoria area into Semiahmoo Bay. Mr. Minister, I asked earlier whether

your staff was researching that. Could you maybe indicate to us today

if there is any report on why the beaches in White Rock are currently

reaching higher levels than on any day in the past?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LOVICK :

A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. Some

months ago now, we posed questions in this chamber to this minister and

also to the Minister of Transportation and Highways concerning the $10

million that was apparently spent with indelicate haste to buy personal

computer equipment for Highways personnel. I'm wondering if the

minister could share with us now the fate of that computer equipment.

Is it still in a warehouse, or is it actually being used?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER : Question period has never gone on so long.

ARSENIC AND LEAD LEVELS

IN WELLS AREA RESIDENTS

MR. SIHOTA :

On July 9, 1990, a question was put to the Minister of Health dealing

with arsenic and lead levels in the Wells area. The minister took that

question on notice and said he'd get back as soon as possible. Could

the minister advise the House whether he has reported back to the House

with respect to that question taken on notice?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, rather than answering in the House, we have taken action

and have addressed this problem, together with my colleague the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). We are there now testing.

As the member from the Cariboo will know, we have taken very

significant action in dealing with that problem. If the member would

rather I respond in the House and not take any action, I'd be pleased

to do that, but we in fact took the other approach. The second member

for Cariboo

[ Page

11541 ]

(Mr. Zirnhelt) brought up this problem, and I

indicated to staff that I wanted to resolve it as soon as possible. We

did, and I see the member for Cariboo agreeing with that observation.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA : This just goes to show you how effective an NDP member from the Cariboo can be.

HON. J. JANSEN : Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not an NDP member.

MR. SIHOTA :

Not only are we grateful for that, but if you wish to step down and

call another by-election, I'm sure we'd win it, as we did in the

Cariboo.

LIFTING OF QUEEN OF BURNABY

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the parliamentary secretary for transportation matters,

whoever that may be. On June 27, 1990, I asked a question about the Queen of Burnaby

and the rescheduling of its refit for a number of months. At that time

the minister took the matter on notice. Could the parliamentary

secretary for transportation advise me why that question has not been

answered yet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'll be happy to take that question as notice for the minister.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Provincial Secretary. Back in April 1990 I asked the

Provincial Secretary a question about the delay of the Marson report

and why it took this government two months — from December 12,

1989, when it was tabled, to February 27, when it was released.... The

minister took the question on notice and was unable to explain the

delay. Could the minister tell us today why there was the delay?

MR. SPEAKER : New question.

COAST GUARD VESSEL

IN PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MILLER : To the Minister of Environment. In September the Coast Guard is proposing to eliminate the Cloo Stung ,

a Coast Guard vessel based in Prince Rupert. This vessel is important

not only in patrolling for fisheries but also for environmental

reasons. Given the events in Alaska and the committee that has been

formed in terms of oil spills, has the minister taken any action to

advise the federal government that it's in the interests of coastal

British Columbia to maintain that vessel in operation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I am tempted, after all these questions, to take

this one on notice, but I won't. I can advise the member that we have advised

the federal government of our feelings. But I would say, in closing this question

period, that it's probably because of the poor representation of the federal

members from that area that he's not getting his job done.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 35, I move that this House do

now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance: namely,

the current crisis with respect to the aboriginal peoples of British

Columbia over their longstanding grievances.

In stating the

reasons, this matter is of an emergency nature, and its peaceful

resolution is of critical importance to the social and economic

well-being of this province. We are at the crossroads in this

province's history. The pent-up frustrations of the aboriginal people

in B.C. over the long-held refusal of the provincial government to

recognize and take action on aboriginal title and aboriginal rights has

led to a situation where roads and other services are blockaded and

further escalation is likely. It is imperative that this volatile

situation be resolved rationally and peacefully.

Mr.

Speaker, there have been references made in this House to the use of

force against the protests of aboriginal people in British Columbia,

rather than using peaceful means. This is evidence of the need to hold

an emergency debate so that members are better informed of the history

and the reasons for the escalation of the blockades.

This

sitting of the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament is

nearing adjournment. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure the course

of action adopted in the coming critical months leads to peaceful

resolution of this fundamentally unfinished business in British

Columbia. Ill-informed action risks further escalation and hardening of

positions, making future conflict resolution more difficult. The courts

have repeatedly ruled that aboriginal people have legitimate rights and

the Crown has unmet obligations. The courts have also repeatedly

signalled to both federal and provincial governments the importance of

addressing these grievances through a fair negotiation process.

The

statement made by this government to expect an announcement by

mid-August on a proposal, which does not include reference to the

fundamental matter of recognition of aboriginal title, is hopelessly

inadequate to diffuse the situation and in fact has provoked angry

reactions contributing to the escalation.

We contend that

this matter is of sufficient urgency to warrant a one-hour emergency

debate in this House. According to standing order 35, we urge you, Mr.

Speaker, to give favourable consideration to this request for emergency

debate on this pressing matter.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if I might add a couple of points that might

help you in your deliberations. First of all, we realize — on this side of the House — the importance of this subject. We would not try to demean the member's motion. However, this matter has been going on for

[ Page 11542 ]

some days — even weeks now — in British Columbia, and the other side has not chosen to rise in question period to even ask a question about it.

Secondly,

the Premier's Council on Native Affairs, which has been meeting for

over a year, filed their interim report yesterday. There are many good

recommendations in it. We do not take this subject lightly.

Thirdly, at this very moment the Premier is out in the interior of this province meeting with the natives of this province — not just talking about it.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Chair will take the matter under advisement and bring back a reply.

I would refer members to practice recommendations of our standing

orders on page 155 of our operating manual.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 79.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 6.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have concerns about this

section and the way it is worded, and I

wonder how expeditious an application can be under this provision.

There is nothing here saying it must be an interlocutory application.

There is nothing saying that the court must hear the matter within a

particular time-period. There is nothing here that gives a signal to

the courts that this matter must be dealt with in an immediate and

urgent fashion.

What it allows for, quite frankly, is

matters to be bogged down in courts for as long as one party wants them

to be, as long as they are prepared to play games. For some people it

may well be worth the penalty to be able to do that. Surely the

minister would agree, when looking at this

section — if he is serious about this bill, and I know many have commented as to that motivation —

that there ought to be some provision in this

section to ensure that

matters get dealt with immediately. If they don't, someone can bog up

this matter in front of the courts for a number of weeks while a

dispute continues to fester. How is that in any way in the public

interest?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The parties have a

right to argue their positions in front of the court, and the court

obviously will make its judgment on the merits of the arguments.

MR. SIHOTA :

No kidding! But the point is this: this

section allows a party to bring

a matter before the courts.... You are sitting in the middle of a

labour dispute, and you have given your notice as the other sections

require; the registrar does his

summary or whatever it is he has to do;

they have had their meeting and so on; and then you have to go to the

court to get authority before you can take action — be it lockout or strike.

terms of the time that the matter is.... It says here: "A trade union

that is, under

section 4(3), forbidden to strike because the public

sector employer has failed to comply with

section 4(2), may apply to

the Supreme Court for an order compelling the public sector employer to

comply."

The opposite applies in the other situation with

respect to an employer. Maybe the way I paraphrased it to the minister

isn't exact, but what I am trying to get at is that you still need an

order for the person to comply. I might have had the time sequence

wrong in terms of where this has to be done, but you still need an

order for someone to comply.

Don't you think there should be a provision in here to say when that application is brought forward on an interlocutory basis —

in other words, a court must deal with it within two days of it being

filed? Or are you saying that it's got to fall on the trial list to

hear all sorts of evidence?

Let's say I comply and somebody else says: "You didn't comply." Then that's a matter — as you say, Mr. Minister —

that is going to be resolved on the merits. What do you mean by

"comply"? If "comply" is not defined, or if it's only partially defined

or not accurately defined, you and I know there can be quite a dispute

about that in court. So now you are saying that matter gets put on the

trial list to be heard — on today's

schedule — somewhere in April of 1991. Is that what you had anticipated in this section, Mr. Minister?

Surely

there must be some provision in here or some acknowledgment that these

matters must be dealt with expeditiously by the courts. Do you not see

that as a flaw?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : First of all, by

virtue of the relatively high penalty of $50,000, we believe the

message would be out there in the community, and that it would be in

both sides' interests to ensure that they comply. You must remember

that we are only dealing here with a failure to comply with the

requirements of the act.

If we didn't put some sort of

penalty in there, obviously we would be at some risk in terms of the

act not being complied with. In considering the point raised by the

hon. member, we determined that a $50,000 fine would address that

issue. It is our view that it is sufficient. It is our view that all

sides in a public sector dispute are people of good will and people

with a genuine desire to avoid these major differences; certainly they

would wish to avoid a court appearance.

AN HON. MEMBER : Note that he asked a question and then left.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes, I suppose I should make note for the record that the person who asked

[ Page

11543 ]

the question has shown such little interest in a response that he has left the Legislature.

At any event, for the purposes of the written record, that is our judgment.

MR. MILLER :

I guess I could point out that even though the minister responsible for

the bill has been in the Legislature, we still can't get any answers

out of him. Given the lack of clarity that the minister admitted under

section 3.... You were completely unable to define sections (c), (

d) and (

e) with respect to the responsibility of parties to file. We dealt

extensively with the range of options that would be available to either

party; how this

section wouldn't work; how, for example — and the minister agreed — you could file a blank piece of paper. I am wondering....

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Point of order. Maybe you could help me. Are we discussing

section 6 or

section 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Section 6, hon. member.

[2:45]

MR. MILLER :

That's what I was discussing, Mr. Chairman.

Section 6 deals with either

party who, having failed to comply with the requirements of previous

sections, by a provision under this

section goes to the courts. It

seems logical, in looking at this

section and the options available, to

refer to sections that are referred to under

section 6. All I'm

pointing out is that given the lack of clarity about the requirements,

how can the courts possibly be in a position to determine whether

either party has complied, if the minister himself can't state with any

degree of clarity or certainty what compliance means?

You

build a bill, Mr. Minister, on a good, solid foundation, and that means

that each successive

section rests on the previous one. Hopefully, if

you've constructed it well, it makes sense and therefore it stands the

test.

I recall Bill King telling me that when he talked

about putting together the Labour Code. The most fundamental thing he

was striving for was not to try to appease parties who would be having

to live under the legislation, but to develop a piece of legislation

that could withstand the test that the courts were going to put it to.

It's kind of fundamental, to me, in terms of good sound government,

that you go through that process.

You previously, as I pointed out, had admitted....

MR. SERWA :

On a point of order, we've already had second reading debate on this

particular bill, and that has concluded. We're in Committee of the

Whole, and I wish the member would pay attention to that and stay

within the

section we are dealing with.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member, for your assistance. The member

will proceed with relevancy on

section 6.

MR. MILLER :

The question's pretty straightforward. I think the minister must have

got the sense of what I'm trying to ask. The courts, having to rule on

these matters as to whether or not the parties have complied, are going

to have to rely on the previous sections. The wording is so bad and the

minister's explanation is so bad that the courts. It seems to me, will

be confounded.

HON. MR COUVELIER : We categorically

refute the suspicions of the member opposite. We happen to think that

the issue is quite clear. It's very simple. There are only three short

paragraphs. We suspect that there should be no doubt. In the event the

member opposite is correct, then we'll soon find out, shan't we?

MR. MILLER : So you don't care.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I heard the aside from across the floor that we don't

care. The reverse is true. We care about the public's right to know. We

care about their ability to determine the effects of these job actions

in the public sector. We care about our responsibility to provide some

leadership in this difficult area, and we care about making sure that

there is an unbiased reporting of the facts of the negotiations of a

public sector labour contract, both the opening position and the final

position, before job action takes place. We care, hon. member. That's

why we brought the bill forward.

MR. CLARK : It's

pretty obvious that my colleague is correct. The minister doesn't

understand, and he doesn't care about the consequences of it, because

this legislation, if it is proclaimed, will have significant and

serious consequences in the public sector, not the least of which is an

expense. Dragging the Supreme Court into labour relations matters has

never worked. That's why we had strong privative clauses in the Labour

Code. Even in the IRA there's a privative clause to try and let the IRC

be the adjudicative body.

I want to ask one simple

question. If the public sector employer and the public sector union

fail to comply with this law and neither party applies to the Supreme

Court under this section, then what happens?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Nothing happens, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK : Therefore it is very easy to boycott this legislation. The public sector employers — say, a school board — and the unions simply have to agree to bypass this legislation, and there's no penalty.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Exactly, Mr. Chairman. This bill is not intended to interfere. I say it

again. I've said it repeatedly last evening, this morning and this

afternoon. This bill is not intended to interfere with the bargaining

process. This bill is an attempt to ensure that the public is aware of

all of the informa-

[ Page 11544 ]

tion relating to public sector labour negotiations in terms of the opening position and the final position.

I said repeatedly this morning, the absence of that information is

frequently as informative to the public as its presence. While the

members opposite may have some trouble with that ethic, I can assure

you, hon. members, that were such a rare event to occur — if neither side chose to make sure that the information was supplied by their adversary in this exchange — then in that very rare instance, that's a very useful message for the public. We see nothing wrong with that.

You

see, you keep trying to put the spin on this issue that we're trying to

manipulate or interfere in the process, and we are not. We are only

attempting to ensure that the public knows the details of a labour

dispute. That's all, pure and simple.

Section 6 approved on division.

section 7.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chair, the registrar is required to do a number of things under

this section: primarily to summarize the material that she or he

receives as a result of the other sections; to make those summaries

available to the public upon request, I guess; and to publish the

summary in the newspaper. There does not seem to be any process,

though, after the material has been received from either party and

summarized by the registrar, for the two bargaining parties to review

the

summary. Do you anticipate that the bargaining principals would

have an opportunity to review the

summary the registrar makes, to check

for accuracy and

interpretation? A number of things can go wrong when

someone who is not part of the process is trying to construct a

summary.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

You know, I have some trouble understanding what the socialists across

the floor really can agree on among themselves. We heard some

conversation this morning that this would delay the process, make life

far more difficult and drag out the process; many speakers spoke to

that. Now this member appears to be trying to manufacture an argument

that somehow or other we should be bouncing back and forth like

ping-pong, agreeing on where the commas would be put. I really don't

understand why you fellows across the floor can't get your act

together. I guess I do understand why.

I want to make this

point, because we haven't really made it in our debates over the last

few hours: this government understands full well that for this

legislation to be useful, the credibility of the registrar is critical.

We understand that, and it would certainly be our intention to ensure

that the person selected for this appointment stands above and beyond

any possible criticism. That would be our desire, and we fully

appreciate that if we fail to properly satisfy the public that this is

an unbiased exercise, one that has no ulterior motive other than

providing information to the public.... If we fail in meeting that

criterion, this bill will have failed its purpose. We understand that,

so it is our determination and our conviction that we must ensure that

this function is performed without fear, favour or bias.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chair, I'd like to advise the minister that simply because I'm

asking questions on how this legislation will work or won't work

doesn't mean that I'm recommending that the things I'm asking about be

added to the legislation.

What we've been talking about

here all morning is the fact that this is a completely unworkable piece

of legislation. It's laughable, it's so bad. As you delve into it with

the horror of wondering how it would actually apply in any particular

bargaining situation and start to work your way through it, it just

gets more and more absurd.

You just talked about the

importance of the credibility of the registrar. That leads right into

my next question. I can't see how the employer — this government —

can appoint a registrar who is going to summarize the position of the

employer and the union. That is exactly the situation that would occur

during BCGEU bargaining. It is different than any of the other public

sector bargaining. If you're dealing with CUPE or any of the other

bargaining units — the teachers, whatever — at least you may

have a semblance of neutrality. We'd have to see who this individual

might be. How in the world can you stand up and say to the public and

certainly to your own employees that there isn't an apparent conflict

of interest, when your appointee is going to be summarizing the two

positions, which the bargaining principals aren't even going to have a

chance to look at to make sure they're accurate?

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Chairman, what this

section shows is another group that the

minister failed to consult with. He failed to consult with anyone who

knows anything about the craft of communication.

As a

politician, the minister himself should know that the clearest form of

communication comes when you are closest to the source of the

information. What the minister is doing is putting in the way of the

source of the information at least one registrar and a whole process

that goes with that. How in the world the minister thinks he is

improving anything, not interfering with it, by suggesting that there

is no need for any information at the beginning of the bargaining

process.... At the end he's going to require some; but, of course, it

can be ignored by both parties— that's okay, he says. Nevertheless, at

all times there's going to be a registrar who is supposed to summarize

some information and then give it to the public. And that is not an

interference with clear communication.? The minister knows extremely

well that when we're in public service bargaining, when we get to the

strike-lockout situation, both sides are very anxious to put their case

to the public, and they do put their case to the public. If the

minister thinks putting a registrar in the middle is going to make

their case clearer to the public, he's making a big mistake.

[ Page

11545 ]

MR. CLARK : A couple of things, to get it clear. The registrar has to summarize the summaries — right? Each party has to put forward a

summary, and the registrar summarizes the summaries. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

If that is necessary. In a perfect world, of course, each side would be

succinct and to the point, and the registrar need not make any effort

to clarify the issue.

MR. CLARK : One last thing. I

noticed in

section 7(3), it says: "Where the registrar receives

material...the registrar shall publish summaries, made under

subsection(1) " — so that's his

summary, not the summaries put forward by the parties —

"of the material in a newspaper having a circulation throughout the

province." So "shall publish." Every time this happens — and there

are about a thousand collective agreements.... Not that many would get

this far, so fair enough. As I say, there are dozens of them they

publish them in the paper. If there is a teachers' dispute in Atlin,

they probably have to publish it in the Vancouver Sun or the Province . Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : No, it's not correct.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could explain his answer, then, given that it

says: "Where the registrar receives material..." If there's a dispute

and they've received material from the Atlin teachers' union and the

school board up there, the registrar shall publish summaries of the

material in a newspaper having circulation throughout the province.

Could he tell me where it‘s wrong?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It's not envisaged that we would necessarily take an advertisement in the Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province . That was the question to which I was responding.

MR. CLARK : Could the minister explain what is meant, then, by "a newspaper having a circulation throughout the province"?

The

minister is seeking counsel, so he probably didn't hear. I want to know

what is envisaged? If that's not envisaged, what is envisaged by "a

newspaper having a circulation throughout the province"?

[3:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I don't think it's government's business to legislate which

publications they will be putting ads in. I happen to think that that's

something that you would not appropriately put in a bill.

MR. CLARK : Does the newspaper mean a commercial newspaper, though? Is

that fair to say? There are only two papers in the province that have circulation

throughout the province, that I know of, and they are the Vancouver Sun and

the Vancouver Province . I wonder if the minister could confirm for me that it

would be one of those two newspapers; or if it's not, whether it's a

commercial newspaper — or what he means by it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm prepared to concede that it might be one of those two newspapers.

MS. EDWARDS :

Is it true that the minister is willing to have the parties go to court

to prove that the registrar has published in a paper that has

circulation throughout the province? Is this another issue that's going

to have to go to court and be settled by litigation?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS :

I don't want to extend this, Mr. Chairman, but it's so foolish of the

minister to not even stand up. Is he, or is he not? If the legislation

is no clearer than that, it's obviously a case that is going to come up

for dispute.

MS. CULL : It might be the Sun , it might be the Province

or it might not be. Might it be something like the bargaining-update

newsletters that the government personnel services division put out

during the last round of master bargaining for the BCGEU? Is that a

newspaper under the terms of this legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That isn't contemplated.

Section 7 approved on division.

section 8.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment under

section 8, an

addition to subsection (1). I believe you have been provided with a

copy, as have the members of the opposition. The amendment would add

this sentence: "The trade union is not entitled to strike and the

public sector employer is not entitled to lock out until this meeting

has occurred."

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK :

It's clear from reading the bill that this amendment is what was

contemplated. It adds to the confusion and the delay in resolving

labour disputes when now we have to wait until perhaps a Supreme Court

order has one party comply. After they comply, we have to wait for the

registrar to call a meeting, and we have to wait for the registrar to

put an ad in the paper and get a meeting-hall. With the BCGEU, several

thousand people would be involved. Then there has to be an open

kangaroo meeting with thousands of people hearing both sides of the

dispute before a strike or lockout could take place.

That strikes me as really constructive —

with my tongue in my cheek. I cannot see how that will help to resolve

matters. Frankly, it will inflame the situation. I don't see how any

reasonable person looking at this legislation could see otherwise.

However, because most of the legislation can be opted out of by

[ Page 11546 ]

agreement between the parties — it appears, according to the minister's own remarks —

perhaps there would be a way of opting out. There probably is a way of

opting out of this

section as well, given what we've talked about. If

one party doesn't compel the other party to comply, then the registrar

will have nothing to do and nothing to go from. That will mitigate some

of the impact of the legislation, except for particularly belligerent

parties in a dispute — employers who want to pursue the matter for political benefit. There maybe something to that, but I don't see that happening.

This

amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the bill, which is crazy. It

doesn't add anything to bringing about stability. We're opposed to it.

MR. MILLER :

The amendment is not so much an inhibitor, as my colleague suggests;

it's just one more clause in a bill that doesn't make a lot of sense.

We'll get into debate on the rest of the

section following this.

Basically you're saying that you can't have a strike or lockout until

you have a meeting. When you look at the rest of the section, whether

it's the public or anybody else in terms of these meetings, It really

doesn't make a lot of sense.

Perhaps we could just get on with the

section itself.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

It seems that with all the filing, the registrar's reports, the

summarization, more summarization and filing, now we're going to have a

meeting. This

section says that you can't go on strike and you can't

lock anybody out until you have a meeting. Now

section 8(2) says that

both sides are going to be notified "in one issue of a newspaper

circulating within the area where the meeting will be held."

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We're on the amendment.

MR. MILLER : Are we dealing with the amendment separately?

MR. CHAIRMAN : We're dealing with the amendment.

MR. MILLER : Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved on division.

section 8 as amended.

MR. MILLER : Are there any rules governing how long this meeting should be?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Is the question referring to the length of the meeting once it is

convened? It's not perceived that it need be a protracted event; it is

perceived merely as an opportunity for both sides to publicly summarize

their positions. We don't envisage that it would necessarily drag out

for a long period of time.

MR. MILLER : If both sides

can summarize their positions in five minutes, presumably you might

have a six- or seven-minute meeting, then. Is that possible?

HON. MR COUVELIER . That's possible, although I suspect that's

not likely.

MR. MILLER : What are the rights of the public at these meetings?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The intent here is to ensure that the public can attend as observers if they have the interest.

MR. MILLER :

The rights of the public are to attend, nothing more. They cannot

participate or ask questions in any form, only attend. Let the record

show, Mr. Chairman, that the minister nodded his head that the public's

only right is to attend the meeting.

Who decides at the meeting if (a), (

b) and (

c) have been complied with?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The registrar would be the chairman of the meeting and could, in that role, make those sorts of adjudications.

MR. MILLER : It doesn't say that in the bill. Is that just your opinion?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I don't know. The member asked a question; I gave him an answer. I

don't know what more I can do to confirm the government's position, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. MILLER : The

section says that at this

meeting each side shall do certain things. I asked who determines

whether or not they have complied with the act. You said you think it

might be the registrar. Are you not certain? It doesn't specify in the

act that the registrar has that obligation. As far as I can see, the

parties themselves can decide whether or not they've complied. If they

choose to go and present their version and leave, then I suppose

they've complied with the act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I didn't say: "I think the registrar would chair the

meeting." I said: "The registrar would chair the meeting." The members

opposite have dragged this thing on for hours, for goodness' sake,

taking my words, confusing them, confounding them and trying to twist

them and change them when they don't suit their purpose for the debate.

I was asked a question; I gave the answer.

MR. MILLER :

I just want it confirmed. The minister is getting rather testy, as we

explore this bill that's so full of holes. Obviously people besides us

are going to be looking at this legislation and wondering just what it

means and how to interpret it. Surely the clear explanations you

provide in this House would

[ Page

11547 ]

offer some guidance. Or the opposite could be true:

the rather muddled explanations presumably will make it more difficult

to deal with this bill.

The registrar is the chairman.

We've established that. He's going to be, or possibly could be, a busy

person. Could he have a designate, by the way? That's a question that

seems to me to come up. Can the registrar designate some other person

to be the chair of the meeting?

Secondly, the

section says

specifically: "At a public sector bargaining disclosure meeting under

this section, each party shall give...a

summary of all matters...a

summary of matters with respect to which no agreement has been reached,

and...each party's position with respect to the matters about which no

agreement has been reached." That's a requirement. Who decides? It does

not say in the bill that the registrar has any power at that meeting to

say to either party: "No, you haven't complied with the legislation."

There is no power contained in the legislation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I suspect part of the member's concern is contained in

section 9. We're not there yet; we're still on

section 8(1) as amended.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

As I was saying earlier, the registrar is going to notify the parties

in one issue of a newspaper circulated within the area where the

meeting will be held. In provincewide bargaining as some ministries do—

that means there's going to be a lot of meetings at a lot of different

places in British Columbia. Does that mean we're going to advertise in

every newspaper in British Columbia? There may be two members of a

union, for instance, in one particular town. Will there be a meeting

there? How many registrars do you plan on hiring here? The Forests

ministry has a lot of employees, and if they're in a bargaining

position and they can't go on strike, are they going to be forced to go

out to these meetings? How many registrars or designates do you plan on

hiring to do this? Are they going to be fully employed, or are you

going to hire them on a part-time basis for specific purposes? What's

the intent of the legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall

section 8 as amended pass? The member is still on his feet.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I'm still waiting for an answer. How many meetings are we going to have

around the province, and how many people are we going to hire under

this bill? Oh, he's going to answer it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You'll never get an answer if you remain on your feet.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The member opposite has sat in the House for a year or two, I believe. Two?

MR. G. JANSSEN : Almost.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I would have thought that he would have grasped the simple fact by now

that each ministry does not negotiate its own contract. There are

government employees; there is one negotiation process dealing with

BCGEU, so each ministry would not be having meetings around the

province with its employees. The government is authorized under the

process to negotiate with the employee representatives, or union reps.

The

member this morning had a similar kind of spin to one of his questions,

which implied he didn't understand that simple fact. Maybe that helps

clarify that situation for him.

MS. CULL : I do

understand that the Forests employees don't bargain separately from

other employees in the BCGEU, but I think the question is still a good

one. If the meeting is held in Vancouver, for example, I think it

disfranchises the public from coming and hearing what's going on all

over the province.

First of all, you have employees all

over the province, and you have members of the public who are affected

by it all over the province. It would seem to me that in government

negotiations you're going to have to hold a series of meetings; there's

going to be some kind of dog-and-pony show, I guess, going around the

province while these meetings are held.

I have another

question, because we've been talking about the members of the public

and their right to know. There is no definition in the act as to

whether the parties involved are the union members and the employers,

or their representatives. I'd like to know whether union members coming

to such a meeting have a right to voice their concerns or their

positions on issues, or if it is only the principals that have the

right to talk about this. Do you envision that members might have a

chance to speak out on issues? They are certainly being very affected,

and their opinions — because the principals are only directed by their members — on whether something is acceptable or not, or in dispute or not, are going to be very important to the public's understanding.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The intent of the legislation is merely to communicate information and

to make sure the information is available. It's not to provide a

debating forum.

MR. LOVICK : A number of us on this

side of the House have used phrases to describe this bill such as

"silly," "wacko," "crazy," etc. This section, it seems to me,

illustrates very clearly why we draw that conclusion.

This

is ludicrous, in a word, Mr. Chairman. The whole concept of collective

bargaining has evolved over time to mean discussions between

individuals who are knowledgeable and professional. Therefore we do

that, in most cases, behind closed doors, and we know that sometimes

those sessions get very acrimonious and sometimes very heated indeed.

[ Page 11548 ]

What we are doing here is creating the possibility of a circus — a circus that might even turn ugly.

Obviously

the minister doesn't even want to answer any of the serious questions

we pose any more, so I will simply register concern. The predicament

here is that we're going to invite a large audience to come out and see

this. They have already been told about the big event; it's advertised

in the newspaper: "Come on out." Then we're going to put the two sides

in an adversarial mode where one side says to the other: "We can't

agree, and here's our position and here's what's wrong with you and

your obduracy and your failure to recognize the legitimacy of our

side." Then we're going to say to the crowd that has been summoned to

watch this gladiatorial kind of combat: "You're not allowed to speak at

the meeting or ask questions."

What is the reason for

having the meeting in the first place? We've advertised; we've got the

positions published in the newspaper. Any citizen in the province can

apparently get a copy of the submissions free, gratis and for nothing.

We're doing all that stuff. Whatever possible purpose could there be to

have a great public meeting? It strikes me as silly in the extreme. I

am embarrassed to have to stand here and talk about this nonsensical

stuff.

MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, my Whip and all

members present are concerned about time, and time is one of the

concepts that I have learned about in this Legislature. Actually it's

the Minister of Finance who has taught me the meaning of the term "in

the fullness of time." I am concerned about an aspect of this

particular

section that deals with time, and it is the

section that

says, "at the earliest practicable opportunity."

It seems

to me the minister is saying: "We're not really fettering the process

of bargaining. We're only setting up a situation that provides for

public information at two points in the process." But is it not true,

with the kind of logistical problems my colleagues have pointed out,

that "at the earliest practicable opportunity" may cause a considerable

delay in the negotiation process? Thereby this legislation could add a

considerable fettering to that process, which the minister says is not

so.

No? You don't want to defend it? You can't defend it.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

Sections 9 and 10 approved on division.

section 11.

MR. CLARK :

This particular

section gives great offence because the minister said

at some length that essentially, as he went through the sections, it

appeared likely that unions and employers could collectively opt out

from sections of this bill. Yet this

section gives the registrar

effective power — kind of a czar — to force different parties

to comply, even when the parties have agreed among themselves to follow

their own conscience with respect to what they will or will not do.

the government was serious about collective bargaining, and if the

rhetoric the minister has used today in spite of this bill is to be

believed, then if both parties were in collective bargaining and agreed

for the sake of reaching a conclusion that they would not comply with

certain sections of this bill — and the minister said that was within their rights — then

it seems to me that the registrar ought not to be able to overturn the

decision made by those two parties. So this

section clearly makes it

much more difficult — depending on who the registrar is and the direction of the government —for

the parties to achieve a collective agreement jointly in their own

fashion. Even if they choose and both agree completely with each other

on every aspect of it, this can override that by way of the registrar,

and I think it is offensive.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved on division.

Schedule approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS - 36

Brummet

Savage

Strachan

Gran

Reynolds

Jacobsen

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Messmer

Michael

Ree

Reid

Vant

De Jong

Chalmers

Dirks

Veitch

S. Hagen

Richmond

Fraser

Couvelier

Davis

J. Jansen

Rabbitt

Dueck

Loenen

McCarthy

Mowat

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Davidson

Long

Mercier

Crandall

Smith

NAYS - 19

G. Hanson

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

Cull

Zirnhelt

G. Janssen

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

[ Page

11549 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER . The question is third reading of Bill 79.

Since all members are still in the House, is it agreed that we waive the time requirement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Agreed.

Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 36

Brummet

Savage

Strachan

Gran

Reynolds

Jacobsen

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Messmer

Michael

Ree

Reid

Vant

DeJong

Chalmers

Dirks

Veitch

S. Hagen

Richmond

Fraser

Couvelier

Davis

J. Jansen

Rabbitt

Dueck

Loenen

McCarthy

Mowat

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Davidson

Long

Mercier

Crandall

Smith

NAYS - 20

G. Hanson

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

Cull

Perry

Zirnhelt

G. Janssen

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

[3:30]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605 (continued).

MR. WILLIAMS : I'd really like to spend a little time with the minister

and, hopefully, his staff — if they are here — on the question of the ambulance

service in the province and various aspects of the management of that service.

It seems clear that there are serious inadequacies in managing this service,

which was brought into being in the period '72 to '75 under the early

NDP government and which many people in the province are proud of. However,

there has been a bureaucratization of management, serious labour disputes and

costly decisions as that program has evolved. Is the minister aware that there

are more grievances, in terms of labour problems with respect to the ambulance

service, than in all other health services combined?

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, it's interesting to listen to the comments about what

happened in '72 to '75, because I find quite a different emphasis when

we compare the hours of usage in those years with those today. The

information I have is that the air ambulance usage during 1975 was 271

hours. The corresponding usage for cabinet ministers of the day — and I guess, they were very active in terms of getting re-elected — was 4,274 hours. Contrast that — a very stark contrast —

to what the situation was for last year, when there were some 1,600

hours for air ambulance and 2,400 hours for cabinet and other

transportation, and a substantial decline in other transportation.

I'm

surprised to hear the member saying that they had a proud record during

1975. It's extremely interesting to look at what we've done with air

ambulance, as opposed to what he calls a proud record during those

years.

In regard to moral and employee relations within the

air ambulance division, if he's talking about the last contract and the

last negotiations, that took some time. We were pleased that we finally

got ratification.

I can say that I'm pleased with the

operations. We have an excellent service and excellent employees. I

spent some time with our ambulance crews in downtown Vancouver. The

comments I get from them are quite a stark contrast to what I just

heard in the House. They are very proud of their service. They are very

happy with their service. I look forward to seeing the proud record

continued.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister doesn't seem

to have listened to the question. That's not unusual. The question is:

are there more grievances in this sector than in all of the other

health sectors combined, dealing directly with the central ministry?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I don't keep track of grievances to be able to give him that

information. If it is his wish that I supply that information, I would

be pleased to supply it to him at a later time. Understandably, the

information isn't currently available.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I hope the minister, deputy and staff do, because you will find that

that is the case. You have serious labour problems there and have had

for some time under Mr. Dubas, who was the chairman of the commission,

if my memory serves me right.

Is the minister happy with the kind of budgetary overruns he's had with respect to the ambulance service?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Is the minister happy with overruns he's had in the ambulance service?

From that, I presume the member would have us cap the budget and say to

patients when we've reached a

[ Page 11550 ]

certain

level: "I'm sorry, we've reached our budget limitation, and we can no

longer afford to pick you up." The air ambulance operation and the

entire ambulance operation is driven by demand. If that demand

increases, obviously the budget has to increase. He says: "Is the

minister happy with his overruns?" No, I'm not happy with my overruns,

but they result from patient demands, and when patient demands are

there, this government is there to meet those demands.

MR. WILLIAMS : Does the minister know what the overruns are?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I thought we were debating this year's estimates rather than last

year's results, but I can tell him what those overruns were, because we

did put through special warrants, as you recall. The ambulance

utilization was an overrun of $2.4 million. I'll give him all the

overruns so he knows. The hospital wage settlement, as a result of our

settlements in both hospital programs and continuing care, was $48

million. We had extra demands in terms of Pharmacare, and there's a

reason for that. There's a breakdown for that as well. It's

$18,749,000. Altogether, the overruns were $69,169,000.

MR. WILLIAMS : The annual report of your own administrators in that sector, Mr. Minister, indicates an overrun of $8,082,250 — not the number you've given the House. Maybe your staff could clarify that.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Unless the member opposite is keeping a separate set of books.... Our

books indicate to us that in the ambulance division, the actual costs

were $66,104,000 on a budget projection of $70,558,000. So where he got

$8 million.... I don't get that from those figures, but I'd be pleased

to hear his explanation.

MR. WILLIAMS : The appendix of the Emergency Health Services Commission annual report, and it is page 20 —

so there it is. But I just make the point because this has been a

consistent pattern, and the minister can say it's simply driven by the

problems in demand. I'd like to suggest that the capacity and

capability in terms of management in this

section is seriously lacking.

Mr. Dubas was the chairman of this commission, and I'm arguing that the

monitoring of it was not as effective as it could and should have been.

It has had serious problems in terms of grievances, and the costs

related to that are very significant.

Your whole system of

paramedic registration is a result of your inadequate labour-management

practices. It follows from actions that were taken by management that

Mr. Dubas and the staff had to deal with and clean up, and the typical

answer of this administration is added bureaucratization of the system.

We saw it in the last bill in the House a couple of minutes ago and

now — again through Mr. Dubas and the way he managed this ministry — we see it again in this section.

There's

always a tip of the iceberg in these things when you hear complaints

from the general public. Remember the complaints we heard a year or so

ago when the communications

section was being moved to Kamloops —

a centralized system in terms of dispatch? There were complaints from

the people of Prince George about the moving of that. In terms of

calling ambulances to rural areas, common sense tells us it's a problem

when you highly centralize the system. It also becomes a problem when

you make it a more highly technical system as well, and that is what

your management in this

section is doing.

You've had

seminars in the Kamloops area, in this section, Mr. Minister, dealing

with stress problems. What has your management level done with it as a

result of those stress seminars? They hired a part-time chaplain for

the service. That's the level of management we have.

Mr.

Minister, are you aware of the kinds of problems with that centralized

communication system when telephone circuits are overloaded? Do you

have any understanding of what it means at Christmastime when

long-distance lines are plugged and people are calling their families?

Doesn't that create some problems in the system in terms of

communications with the ambulance service? Are you aware of those kinds

of problems?

HON. J. JANSEN : Obviously the member is

not utilizing facts; he's speculating and rambling somewhat. He was

somewhat abusive about the chaplain. I take offence at that. In fact,

it is an ambulance attendant who also provides us with the ability to

deal with some of the tragedies that occur in accidents throughout the

province. For him to suggest that we shouldn't provide that

compassionate care and support in times of tragedy, I think most people

would find offensive.

I'm also aware of the high standard.

We have 3,000 people, full-time and part-time, working for the air

ambulance division. I submit to the member that all those proud men and

women who serve in the B.C. air ambulance service do so with the

excellence of care that is second to none in Canada. I'd be willing to

compare our service with anywhere in Canada, because they provide very

proud and dedicated service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Nobody's disputing the good work done by the people in the field in

this, and we're proud of having established it in the seventies, when

it was a private sector system that did not serve the people well at

all.

The question is: what has happened to management? Your

new computer-assisted dispatching system, which you're spending great

amounts of money on, will remove voice contact in terms of that system.

Are you satisfied that really is the answer, that you've got the best

advice in the world on it and that it is not going to have glitches,

just as the move to Kamloops had its glitches?

[ Page

11551 ]

HON. J. JANSEN : I guess the question is: are we happy with

putting in place a system that enables a quicker response time to the

patients of the province of British Columbia? I want to say yes — absolutely.

We are designing and implementing a system that enables us to respond

quicker, more efficiently and more effectively to the calls we receive.

Do I support that? Absolutely yes, Mr. Member.

[3:45]

MR. WILLIAMS : We shall see, Mr. Minister.

the whole question of consolidation of communications, you're satisfied

that it in fact has been successful, and that there have been no

problems. We don't have an address system in rural British Columbia,

Mr. Minister. Not everybody has a number on their house when you get

into these small rural areas. The kinds of difficulties in knowing

where a location is, in terms of dispatching, are serious. Are you

satisfied that a centralized system in Kamloops, covering all of the

north and all of the interior, is the way it should be, and that your

head of communications in the ambulance service has all the real

qualifications for his job that are absolutely necessary?

HON. J. JANSEN : Absolutely yes.

MR. MILLER :

I note that the head of the service is a Mr. Bates, and I see that the

head of communications in the system is a Mr. Bates. I notice that

there are other people in the service by the name of Mr. Bates. It's

quite extraordinary that these family people should all be as qualified

as they are in these various sectors. I'm pleased the minister is so

satisfied about their qualifications.

The service also has

a public relations arm, which is under Mr. Klein, and I'm sure the

minister knows Mr. Klein. The public relations service has developed

its own logo, and they've gone to considerable expense. They've created

a four-foot mouse called "Medic Mouse, the Righteous Rodent." It's the

symbol of the ambulance service now in British Columbia. Your head of

communications in the ambulance service has lost Medic Mouse. He ended

up sending a memo to all members of the Legislature, saying that Medic

Mouse had been lost, and they thought it had been stolen by the

paramedics from the Big Apple. Your communications expert asked every

MLA to send a wire to the Big Apple and bring back Righteous Rodent.

Well, I complied, because I'd been so impressed by their calibre of

management in the service. I still haven't had a reply. I wonder if the

minister has written the paramedics in New York, urging the return of

the Righteous Rodent.

HON. J. JANSEN : I'd like to say a few things, but I won't, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me say that I find it offensive that for some reason the name Bates

is wrong; or that there was some inference or insinuation that perhaps that

name wasn't appropriate. I would like to learn more about that. The head

of communications is not Bates; the head of communications is a gentleman by

the name of Train.

I very much appreciate the efforts of our ambulance service to make their services supported by the public — their

campaign to get public participation and understanding of the service,

how effective it is, how supportive it is, how to access it and what we

provide in terms of defibrillators, other equipment and first-responder

programs. Yes, I agree with all that. The bottom line, again, is that

it's the best service in all of North America.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The public relations arm supplements the activities of this sector

through a separate agency, a society that ends up selling, I guess, the

logo "Righteous Rodent," T-shirts and a whole range of paraphernalia.

Could the minister advise us of the name of that society?

HON. J. JANSEN : No, I'm sorry. I'll get back to the member with that name as soon as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS : I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

I take it, then, that that operates separately, outside the regular budget that we would cover in estimates.

HON. J. JANSEN : Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Chairman, there was a study carried out in 1985 about overmanning

at the managerial level of the ambulance service. It's my understanding

that it was concerned with overmanning at the supervisory level of the

service. You have unit chiefs; you have supervisors; I guess, at the

level here in Victoria, you have an executive director; you have a

director of medical programs; you have an executive secretary; you have

a director of operations; you have an assistant director of operations;

you have a superintendent of public relations; you have a

superintendent of Airvac programs — oh, that's the other Mr. Bates; I'm sorry, it's not communications; he's the supervisor of Airvac programs —

the director of administration and support operations; a superintendent

of support operations; and a superintendent of policy and planning.

I'd

suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that it's a classic case of too many

agencies since you people have been in power. It's the over

bureaucratization at the top, at the managerial level. There were

reviews in '85, but there was no action taken, was there, Mr. Minister?

There was a review of the over bureaucratization. There was a review of

excessive supervisory levels. Despite that, nothing happened. Isn't

that the case, Mr. Minister?

HON. J. JANSEN : First

of all, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can get guidance from you as to what

has happened in the past or whether the debate should be focused on the

responsibility during the term that I am Health minister. I'm not sure

if some of those things in the past are out of order or not.

[ Page 11552 ]

Having

said that, however, I would say that I understand from the staff that

reviews have been done and that there have been some efficiency changes

made. I guess the bottom line — and I'm sorry I don't see that focus on that side — is

how effective the organization is in dealing with patient calls. That's

really my bottom line. If we're not effective in terms of dealing with

the continuing growth in the province and we're not effective in terms

of call-volume increases and response times, then yes, I accept some of

those things. But we have an outstanding service and an outstanding

employee base, including the supervisors, that provides that service to

the people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I

recognize the member, the minister asked us whether he was obligated to

answer questions on situations that occurred prior to his being the

minister. I would again say that the minister is under no obligation to

answer any questions, and I would leave to his judgment the answering of questions from before his being the minister of that ministry.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's true that all grievances and arbitrations are now moved to central

government authority. The track record has been so bad in terms of the

managerial capability within this division that all grievances and

significant labour problems simply get shunted to the central

government negotiating agency, because this management is not capable

of handling it in an adequate way. Is that not the case?

HON. J. JANSEN : No, Mr. Chairman, it's not.

MR. WILLIAMS : Does the minister really know?

HON. J. JANSEN : Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe the minister should be briefed so that he can give us a more detailed answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 38 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe the minister can get some help from his deputy so he can be really sure of that answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 38 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS :

The reality is that these problems are dealt with by another agency of

government because your management in this

section has such a terrible

track record and has got into real problems in the past. That's the

reality.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm talking about the kind of management we have.

I'd like to get on to an arbitration, one of these many arbitrations that

the government lost with respect to the ambulance service. One of the arbitrations

you lost was with Stephen Kelleher, who is a highly respected arbitration and

labour lawyer. Mr. Kelleher concluded that an employee had been wrongly dismissed.

This was because they pulled the certification with respect to the paramedic

as part of the exercise of dismissing him. As a result of that, Mr. Kelleher's

learned judgment was that you could not do that.

Subsequent

negotiations with Mr. Dubas ended up creating a registrar and a

registration system. That came through as a bill a year or so ago; it

was Bill 39 at the time. Again, this is a classic example of responding

to problems and inadequacies by bureaucratization.

You end

up having a registration system for paramedics and staffing with

respect to registering paramedics and licensing paramedics as a result

of previously inadequate labour practices. While the union accepts that

circumstance, I would suggest that it is simply the result, again, of

poor labour practices and inadequacies at the management level that

have had to be addressed by other agencies of government.

Could the minister advise us who reviewed employment with respect to the new registrar and paramedics?

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, that hiring was done a year and a half ago, and long

before my tenure as Health minister. Staff advise that this particular

hiring was done appropriately as a result of a normal competition.

What

is important to focus on.... Somehow the member finds it offensive that

an arbitration took place during staff relations.... He thinks an

arbitration means that we have poor employee relations, and that

arbitration is — in his words — inappropriate. As a result of

that arbitration, the minister of the day established a licensing

authority that would give some impartiality and an arm's-length review

of licensing. I find that positive.

MR. WILLIAMS : Why was that necessary?

HON. J. JANSEN : We thought a process not dissimilar to the one in professions throughout the Health ministry — where we have a licensing body which is distinct and separate from the one that looks after negotiating —

more appropriate, and for obvious reasons. This is not a regressive

step. It's a positive step in terms of dealing with issues of concern

to those licensed in the profession of air ambulance attendants.

[4:00]

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister can call it what he will, but for anybody who reviews the

evidence in terms of this operation, it's very clear there are serious

problems at the managerial level. They've had to be resolved in a

costly manner. They continue to have to be resolved in a costly manner.

The Kelleher report is clear in that respect, and it's just one of many

arbitrations that have had to be faced again and again in that

particular shop.

[ Page

11553 ]

There's also the modification plant which builds these vehicles. I

see that there is now a superintendent in that area. Is this the same

person who was effectively an executive assistant to Mr. Dubas

previously — Mr. Buchanan?

HON. J. JANSEN : I

don't know why the member is asking about things that happened years

ago. Obviously I was not the minister at that time. Perhaps he could

elaborate on why that's important during this discussion, and I could

comment in terms of what the impact is on this year's budget so we

could get back to the budget debate.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Would the minister be prepared to deposit with the House all the

detailed analyses with respect to moving the fabrication plant from

Saanich to Kamloops — the kind of business plan and economic analyses that took place with respect to that decision?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Yes. Obviously before we embark on a move like that or make a change

like that, we have a business plan to support it; in fact, it's a

substantial savings to the people of British Columbia We also think it

is very appropriate to locate services in a more centralized geographic

location in the province. It conforms to the thinking on that side of

the House that decentralization and moving services into the region is

a good thing. I suspect from what the member is saying that he really

supports this move.

MR. WILLIAMS : I take it that the

minister has made a commitment that the business plan and the various

economic analyses will be made available with respect to the society

that I requested information about. That's fine.

Since we

are in a new regime in terms of the public service and the management

of the Health ministry, which is so huge, I would hope that management

at the highest levels of the ministry will look seriously at the

questions I have raised and others that I would be happy to discuss

with them. These matters could have been resolved more satisfactorily I

am not satisfied with the capability of the decision making process

within that system at this stage.

MR. CASHORE : I know the minister has received correspondence from Mr.

Don Pharand in the Grand Forks area. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Perry) and I have received several letters from him with regard to the

indoor radon gas issue. I am sure the minister is aware that the United States

Environmental Protection Agency indicates that household radon is a probable

major cause of lung cancer. They publish quite widespread information on how

the public can protect itself from radon gas. I would like to ask the minister

to give the House an update with regard to how his ministry is addressing this

issue.

HON. J. JANSEN :

We are trying to dig up the briefing note on that. As I recall, we are

in the second year of a two-year study, and we are looking at that

issue. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey knows that as well. I

think I corresponded with him in regard to the radon issue. We are

studying the issue, and I don't have the results of the study yet.

MR. CASHORE :

Thank you for that answer. Perhaps when the briefing note is available,

the minister could also comment on whether or not his ministry has made

any measurements of background radon concentrations in ambient air in

the affected interior communities. I think that would be an important

process to review.

On the same subject, I would like to ask

the minister if he has considered making available the test kits which

can be supplied in bulk and at very little cost to enable people in

communities to do that testing. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to go

on to my next question, if the minister would like, realizing that some

information is forthcoming. Or would he like to respond to that now?

HON. J. JANSEN :

The second part of the question is whether or not we would make that

available. What I'd like to do, first of all, is deal with the study to

determine the extent of the problem with radon and ambient conditions.

I don't think it is the case.... But I'll address that in more detail

when we dig up our briefing note on that issue.

MR. CASHORE :

With respect to that answer, it would seem to me that the study would

have a purpose that is not connected to the importance of making some

sort of testing available to the community. I don't think that should

depend on the study and, again, I would like to recommend to the

minister that he make that testing available. I may come back to that

in a moment.

The other question is: would the minister consider arranging for an

article to be published in Your Better Health so that the public could have up-to-date information on this important matter regarding public health?

HON. J. JANSEN : Yes, that's an excellent idea, and we will do that.

should give you a little more clarification now on the study. It's a

two-year study, and we are doing it through the University of British

Columbia. We have funded $140,000 to do a study on 14 locations in the

province. The university, in phase 1 of the study, has put detectors in

75 homes in each of seven locations, such as Kelowna, Penticton, Prince

George, Quesnel, Valemont, Vernon and Nelson. We'll be putting in

further locations in phase 2 of the study.

From that

information we'll be able to better advise the public on the areas in

their homes that should be tested for radon. From that study, too, I

hope — and I'll certainly take it on advisement — that the measuring kits the member is mentioning in

[ Page 11554 ]

terms of the areas that have been Identified as high-risk....

MR. CASHORE : I want to thank the minister for that answer.

The

next issue is a rather tragic situation that exists in my constituency

and which I believe exists elsewhere in the province. Recently in

School District 43, which includes Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port

Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, we've had a rash of teenage suicides. I

know that the ministry, along with the Ministries of Solicitor-General

and Social Services and Housing, and perhaps others, shares

responsibility and concern in this area.

I have a letter

here from Gesele Lejoie and Ron Roberge, who are with the Coquitlam

Secondary School Counsellors' Association, and I think the way they

articulate this issue puts it in a nutshell. They point out that SHARE

services had a contract whereby they were providing some services in

this area dealing with teenage suicide. Because they did not feel that

they could fulfil the mandate that needed to be fulfilled, they did not

apply to continue with that contract. They really felt that they were

not able to do what needed to be done with regard to this tragic issue.

Following

that, Fraserside Community Services received the contract, and I just

want to point out that there is no attempt here whatsoever to get into

any criticism of either of these organizations. They've both done

outstanding work, but with very limited resources and a very limited

mandate.

As a matter of fact, Lejoie and Roberge say:

"We've

been very satisfied with Fraserside Community Services Society, which

is the new agency contracted.... They have been outstanding in their

delivery, providing immediate contact for students and follow-up

consultation with the referring school counsellor.

"Our

only concern is with the lack of follow-up with the individual and

family. It is our understanding that under the present funding scheme,

Fraserside cannot meet this need. We respectfully request that

additional funding be found to provide these services."

lot of people in the Coquitlam area have been meeting in the context of

quite a bit of despair over this issue. It has tragically affected a

number of families in our area. I have had people come into my office

to talk to me about ways they are trying to deal with some of our young

people, to enable them to have a listening ear. But the services

provided are not comprehensive enough; there are serious gaps. Because

of this, we are losing either through the tragedy of suicide or the

tragedy of the social consequences of those who don't go that far....

There's some real disruption, dislocation and serious despair in the

lives of these people. It's a tragic thing to see this happening to our

youth, who in this country and this province should be able to look

forward to a fulfilling future. These are very troubled people, and

it's obvious that government has not addressed the issue of filling

these gaps and enabling the community and agencies to complete the

services that are needed.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

HON. J. JANSEN : It is a very serious matter, I agree, and a great concern to us. We are doing an

article in our next Your Better Health

magazine about teen suicide, in the part of the magazine that is

focused directly on our teens. It is a tragic situation, and through

the new mental health plan and the youth mental health services we are

looking at crisis intervention as a program.

I would ask the member to submit that to me, and I will have a took at it in a review for that service.

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE :

We certainly don't oppose appropriate studies being made, but we need

these intervention and follow-up services right now. It's urgent.

Just

a couple of quick things in conclusion. One is that the area I share

with my colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) includes Riverview

psychiatric hospital. We feel that we have seen some very unnecessary

difficulty for the people of the mental health community — the people who work there both management and labour — and

the patients. We are pleased that a settlement has been reached, but I

just want to get on the record the cost in human terms to all involved

in that long and difficult dispute.

Finally, I know that

yesterday a number of letters were read into the record. I don't

propose to get into reading a lot of letters, but there is one letter I

want to make reference to, because I think it typifies for my

constituents some real concerns that have been expressed about the

delivery of health services.

This is from a resident of the

Maillardville part of Coquitlam. Tanya Carter is talking about her

father who has some kind of growth in his abdomen. His condition is not

considered serious enough for him to get a bed, even though once the

diagnostic work is done, it will probably be deemed to be very serious.

This is the kind of situation where a delay is causing a great deal of

distress and difficulty for people. I think it typifies the way in

which the health system needs to be addressed so that these people

aren't left in a much more life-threatening situation simply by a delay

in getting the diagnostic work done.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I thank the member for the comments about that individual patient, but

it is very difficult to generalize. There are different circumstances

relating to each case that many times result in delays. It could be

because the surgeon is overbooked or the facilities are overbooked. I

said yesterday that I want to develop a system that provides

information to the physicians and surgeons as well as the patients,

which would enable us to utilize all our resources more effectively in

addressing wait-lists for patients such as the one the member just

mentioned.

Vote 38 approved.

[ Page

11555 ]

Vote 39: ministry operations, $3,367,859,624 — approved.

Vote 40: Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, $1,434,501,771 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I move the committee rise, report resolution and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

54, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 76; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76,

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MS. EDWARDS :

The clause amends the Utilities Commission Act, which gives the

minister broader powers to exempt independent power producers from

regulation — the projects themselves. I'm not sure why the

minister felt he needed this increased power. There may be some larger

independent power projects.... The minister had the power already, and

I'm not sure why he wanted to extend that power.

HON. MR. FRASER : It just provides the minister power to exempt small producers. It doesn't leave the public interest unprotected.

MS. EDWARDS : They were already regulated if they produced more than a petajoule. This provision takes off that limit.

Could

the minister answer the question? I know the Solicitor-General knows

this like the "inside of his hand," but I suspect the minister

initiated this change. Since the minister is in the House, I wonder if

he could respond to my question. He has fairly broad powers now, and

this could lead to a spot where many of the independent power projects

coming up.... There is considerable concern, now that we're moving into

independent power production, as to what's happening. I'm not sure why

the minister needed this power. I would like him to answer.

HON. MR. DAVIS : The independent power producers, if they merely sell their energy to one other customer — one other industry, or one other customer in the sense of B.C. Hydro — are not themselves the utilities and are not, therefore, regulated, assuming this

section goes through. Their contract — if they have one —

with B.C. Hydro would, of course, be examined when B.C. Hydro comes

before the Utilities Commission to justify its purchase of additional

supplies of power. So the details of the sales contract will become a

matter of public knowledge simply because Hydro, a major producer,

transporter and distributor of electrical energy, is a monopoly and a

regulated utility.

If any of these projects export any

energy, or if they sell energy over any distance across B.C. Hydro's

powerlines, then the exportation and the wheeling over Hydro's lines

will be subject to public hearings

[ Page 11556 ]

and,

therefore, regulation. But it does exempt private companies, large or

small, and there will be very large number of very small ones — from regulation if they do not themselves act as retailers of power.

MS. EDWARDS :

In the best of all possible worlds, I'm sure it would be very clear

whether all of these things are very clear or not. I would suggest that

there is a possibility that it's not always going to be so clear. I

would like to ask the minister: is there any possible way for concerned

parties to appeal the minister's decision if he exempts a project from

regulation?

HON. MR. DAVIS : I can't identify a

process of appeal other than here in the Legislature. What is of

concern to the public is usually a matter of rates and so on. These

companies will have only one sale. It will be to another company. If

it's to another private company, then the rate or rates in that private

sale are not necessarily in the public domain. It's not necessary to

file them. If they do involve any of our monopoly utilities, they must

of necessity be filed.

As I said before, if this is a

significant source of power to Hydro or to West Kootenay Power or for

export, then there will be hearings before the project is approved for

construction. Certainly the environmental aspects, etc., as well as

economics will be examined in full public view. We're hoping to be able

to exempt a few dozen really small developments, where the companies do

not engage in retailing energy in any form, from regulation.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm just trying to figure out how much they are exempt from any kind of

supervision and meeting any environmental requirements and so on. How

would they be required to meet environmental requirements if they don't

have to go to the Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

There are two matters here. One is the granting of an energy project

certificate by the province. That is necessary in any case. A review by

the commission, on the other hand, may be a second stage — or a

necessary part. The amendment to

section 27 deals only with the status

of an independent power producer as a regulated public utility This

doesn't exempt them from having to obtain an energy project certificate

from the province.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER . I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 67.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

[4:30]

section 12.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm just seeking clarification from the minister again. What this does

is recognize that certain sums set aside in sinking funds to repay

debts owed by Hydro are now set out as obligations against Hydro's

borrowing power. Could the minister clarify why he has done that?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

It's to treat Hydro in the same way that a number of our other Crown

corporations are treated, or to put it another way, to allow Hydro to

treat its sinking funds in the same way as, for example, B.C. Rail can.

If Hydro has access to its sinking funds, up to a point, for financing

new projects or to carry out repairs and so on, it needn't borrow new

money at present high interest rates. It creates uniformity across all

of our Crown corporations.

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm a little confused about the rationale for this section. It provides

the power to municipalities regarding shop-closing. It applies to

Sundays as well as to other days. The way I interpret this

section — and the minister may correct me; or somebody, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) isn't here —

this amendment will allow councils to make Sunday one of the days on

which the closing hour of stores is regulated, or to make Sunday the

seventh day, meaning that the council can require that stores stay

closed. I wonder why this government wants to get mixed up in Sunday

closing and give councils the right to close on Sundays when the people

decide that issue by referendum. What's going on here?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to allow municipalities

to regulate the shopping hours on Sunday, not to prevent shopping on

Sunday. This means that this is a shopping day subject to regulations

by the municipality.

MR. BLENCOE : Do municipalities have the power on six days of the week, other than Sunday, to say:

[ Page

11557 ]

"You shall open and you shall close at a certain

time"? Or is it open to the stores and free enterprise to make that

decision, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Chairman, the reason for this amendment was a lack of clarity as it was

written. The purpose of the act is to allow municipalities to regulate

the hours of shopping on Sunday, as it would any other day, and prevent

them from closing on Sundays, as they have done in some places.

Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 73.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have several questions. I'm rather surprised to have to rise at this

point and admit that I have several questions. We agreed to give the

government a reading last night, with the understanding, as the

minister indicated on two different occasions in this House, that the

purpose of this bill was solely to license existing private adoption

agencies.

On my desk this morning — and it's interesting that it should take so long to come from the ministry —

I received the minister's own press release. There are a couple of

things that really disturb me, because they are very different than

what the minister has said in this House, and I'd like some answers.

I know that we're going

section by section, and I'll ask the minister

some questions in particular about

section 2, because this refers to the children

being put up for adoption and to who is qualified to adopt these children. My

first question, which relates to the minister's press release, has to do

with who those children are. In the minister's press release, the minister

says that the ministry will continue to plan adoptions for older children and

for children with special needs. Mr. Minister, are you suggesting that this

initiative is to privatize the adoption of infants in this province? Is that

the real purpose of your bill? That's certainly not what you introduced

in this House.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The answer to that is no, it's not an attempt to privatize adoption in

this province. Many children at the present time are privately adopted,

and this is to put regulation and control into it and have it done

through a licensed agency.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I asked a

specific question about the age of the children, but we'll get back to

that. I want to follow up on this particular point.

Mr.

Minister, if you are refuting what this press release says, perhaps I

could suggest to you that you send out a correction, because in the

press release it says that the amendment related to the creation of

licensed private adoption agencies will take effect in the spring of

'91. It suggests that you will, through these amendments, be creating

new agencies, not bringing into compliance the agencies that already

exist. Mr. Minister, I ask you again: are you encouraging the

privatization of adoption in this province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, we not privatizing the adoption of children in this province. Again

I say to the member that we will be licensing agencies that will be

carrying out the adoptions. Many of these adoptions are now carried out

privately — unlicensed. We will have them licensed and controlled

to make sure that the adopting is done in a proper process that takes

into consideration the relinquishing parents and the adopting parents

and protects the interest of the child. That's what it's all about.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I am happy to hear the minister's response, and I'll look forward to

some amendments later on that talk about the target group the minister

has referred to. Perhaps we can make this bill a little more specific

so that it suits the task.

Back to the question of age of

the child, Mr. Minister. In your press release you say: "The ministry

will continue to plan for adoptions for older children and for children

of special needs." Why have you excluded in your press release the

adoption of infants? Is the ministry getting out of the business of

adoption of infants? Or are you trying to facilitate a special group in

this province to handle the adoption of infants?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The answer to the question is no, we are not doing that at all.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm not sure what "No, we are not doing that at all" means. I'm unclear

as to what you're not doing, Mr. Minister. Why have you excluded the

reference to infant adoption in your press release? Why have you chosen

specifically to talk about older children and special-needs children?

Those two groups are the most difficult to place for adoption. Is it

the intention of the ministry to solely

[ Page 11558 ]

handle those difficult cases and leave the adoption of infants to others? Could the minister be more specific in his answer?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : We plan to continue to adopt infants through the

ministry, but the legislation deals with young babies — they are the easiest

to adopt — and it's to control the adoption of them through the licensed

agencies. But we will also do some. We may do some.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm a little unclear on the minister's answer once again. The minister

says that the legislation deals with the adoption of babies. I don't

see anywhere in this legislation that it refers to age. As I read the

minister's introductory statements on two separate occasions, the

ministry talks about licensing existing adoption agencies. Are those

agencies only dealing with infant adoption?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

They are presently dealing only with infants. If they wish to place

older children, that's fine too; but at the present time they are

placing infants.

MR. CASHORE : I just want to follow

up on the questions that my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was

asking. It's still unclear to me what the minister's intention is with

regard to what he says is the regulation of the agencies that are

already involved in adoption. Would the minister tell the House, with

regard to infant adoptions, what percentage is now being handled by

adoption agencies and what percentage is now being handled by his

ministry?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The figure for 1989 is 108 private adoptions and 112 ministry adoptions.

MR. CASHORE :

So the minister is recognizing, by those statistics, that already

adoption is to quite some extent privatized in the province, even prior

to this regulatory legislation coming through. Would the minister tell

the House if he anticipates, as a result of this legislation, any

change in those percentages, which are roughly fifty-fifty?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

We can't say for sure that there will be a change; there might be. But

again, I want to counter the argument that adoption has been

privatized. Many infants have been adopted by arrangements of other

people. If you call that private, I guess it is, but that's not

something that the government was doing. It's something that's been

carried out that way for a long time.

We are putting rules,

regulations and licensing to that so that there is a control system to

make sure that it's all done properly and in the best interests of the

relinquishing parent, who is a very important individual in this

process; the adopting parent; and, of course, most importantly of all,

the child. It's to protect the best interests of the child and to make

sure that it's done properly. That's why we are going into the process

of licensing — not to change the makeup of the system that has

done it before. There will still be children placed by the ministry.

And instead of unlicensed adopting being privately done, it will be

through a licensed agency.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, my colleague has read from the news release. It seems to

imply that the minister anticipates that in the future, at least, the

adoption of normal children will be handled by private agencies, and

the adoption of those with special needs will be handled by the

government. The minister has not answered her question as to whether or

not the wording of his news release is correct. Is the wording of the

minister's news release correct? Or does he see that perhaps there was

an error in the news release?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : The

wording of the news release is correct, but your

interpretation of the

intent of the wording of the news release is not correct. That's where

the difference is.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would ask the minister if he's seen his press release.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Yes, I've seen the news release.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Let me read another quote from the press release, because nothing the

minister has said, either in answers so far or in his introductory

statements, has even come close to what this says: "There are many

reputable agencies currently providing quality service to families and

children in British Columbia. We expect that some of them will be

keenly interested in providing adoption services." You're not talking

solely about bringing under regulation existing private adoption

agencies. What you are specifically talking about here is encouraging

other agencies to become involved in adoption services. Is that

correct? Rather than trying to clean up the mess that exists, you are

encouraging the privatization of adoption services in this province. In

this press release you refer to the fact that the ministry will

continue to provide adoption services for children who are difficult to

place, and you exclude any reference to infants.

You are

being less than honest in your introductory statements. The minister is

being somewhat misleading in his comments to the House in the two

different stages of this bill and in answering questions now, because

very clearly this is not a bill to regulate existing adoption agencies.

This bill — as clearly spelled out in your press release, and which is

very different from the picture you would like to paint in this

House — is to encourage the private adoption agencies in this province in the area of infant adoption. Would you not agree?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : First of all, it's getting late in the session, and I don't know that I should spend

[ Page

11559 ]

time challenging the member on her comments

regarding "dishonesty," "misleading," and statements to that effect. I

don't take them very lightly, and I think that you are perhaps not as

willing as you might be — or as you pretend to be — to understand the legislation.

Some

of the agencies that will be licensed are providing that service

already, but they are not licensed at this time. There are also

individuals who provide this service, and they will not be able to

provide it. It will have to go through a licensed agency that is

equipped to provide the service required to do the job properly and

effectively in the best interest of the child and all people concerned.

That's why we want it controlled, because there have been some

difficulties with children who have been placed privately in the past.

We want to remove that.

MS. SMALLWOOD : In the

minister's introductory statements, he says: "This amendment is thus

not privatizing work done by government but is regulating work already

done by the private sector." In your press release, you say: "There are

many reputable agencies currently providing quality services to

families and children in British Columbia. We expect some of them will

be keenly interested in providing adoption services." It seems to be a

direct contradiction. In one you are saying that you are cleaning up a

mess that's already out there, and in another you are saying that you

are interested in other private agencies taking up the task of

government in providing adoption services.

I have only one

further question for the minister in this area. Is it the intent of

this government to facilitate private adoption by groups, such as

pro-life organizations, that are encouraging women to keep their

children, and thus provide placement for those infants?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

That's a very interesting question. I guess the member finally got to

the point that she was really aiming at all the time. I can tell you

very honestly — although you don't think my credibility is very high from the comments you have made —

that we have never even considered that. We have not talked about that;

we have not considered that; that is not the intent. We are not doing

something that's presently being done by the government and that's now

going to be done by the private sector The people and the players may

change, but the service that has been provided by the private sector

and will be provided by private agencies in the future will now be

licensed, controlled and un