1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 4445

Tabling Documents –– 4445

Oral Questions

Legal Services Society. Ms. Brown –– 4445

Mr. Lank

Proposed curriculum changes. Mr. Rose –– 4446

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 4447

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 4447

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Skelly

Division on amendment

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 4456

On the amendment

Mr. Passarell –– 4459

Ms. Brown –– 4461

Mr. Cocke –– 4465

Hydro And Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 4467

Tabling Documents –– 4467

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is a great

pleasure for me to introduce to the assembly today a very distinguished

career servant of our country, Mr. Jacques Asselin, who has just

recently assumed the position of consul-general in Seattle. He

represents the interests of our country in Washington, Oregon, Idaho

and Alaska. I'd like all hon. members to bid him a very cordial welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, again today I want to introduce

to the House someone from the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. I ask the

members to please welcome Hanne Turner-Pannekoek.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are

several members of the Malvern Rugby Club from Worcestershire, England,

along with their manager David Robins. This evening at 6 o'clock they

will be playing their first game on this continent, against Velox of

Victoria, at Windsor Park in Oak Bay. I'd like the House to wish them

well and welcome them.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I'm very proud to

introduce my mother and father, Doug and Helen Reynolds, who are out

visiting us from Toronto and enjoying this beautiful British Columbia.

With them is my wife Yvonne.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a

very good friend and constituent of mine, Al Clark and his wife Lennie.

With Al and Lennie this afternoon are two guests from Yorkshire,

England, Jack and Joan Forster. I would ask the House to make them all

welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House Mr.

Murdoch and students from L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary School in

Surrey. Would the House bid them welcome.

MR. PARKS: I would ask the House to join with me in making

welcome a group of young British Columbians who are visiting today.

They are grade 11 social studies students from the largest high school

in British Columbia, Centennial School in Coquitlam. I'd also like to

take this opportunity to commend the two teachers sponsoring them here

today, giving them an opportunity to see democracy in action. Please

welcome them to our House.

MS. BROWN: A group of students from Edmonds Junior Secondary School

will be visiting the precincts later this afternoon. I wonder if the House would

bid them welcome in anticipation now.

Introduction of Bills

HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1984

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

a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984.

Bill 24 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. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the 1982-83 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources: "Services for People."

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the fifteenth annual report of the

activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board regarding flood

control.

Oral Questions

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General, and it has to do with the Legal Services Society. Is

the Attorney-General willing to accede to the request of the Legal

Services Society to delay any consideration of the act amending that

society until after his task force have given him their report?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the

Legislature and would proceed according to the House business and the

priorities given by the House Leader. I do not believe that the work of

the task force and the consideration of this bill are in conflict,

because all the bill does is to allow the society, which has been

created to administer legal aid, to set its own priorities and to do

the things the society did before to try to meet its budget and which

it was unable to do because of the decision in the case of Mountain. So

it restores the authority to the society, and that legislation will be

needed, regardless of what the task force recommends. The task force

will bring in some far-reaching recommendations, I believe, for legal

aid. As a result of those recommendations, the government and the Legal

Services Society may wish to set entirely different priorities. Through

the passing of this legislation the society will be in that position.

Although the timing of the two may give difficulty to some, and some in

the legal profession, I do not believe that the two are in conflict, or

that one can't proceed without the other.

[2:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on Monday the

Legal Services Society indicated that in fact the passage of this piece

of legislation at this time would curtail the services they would be

able to deliver, because they haven't got the budget to do it. I'm

wondering whether the Attorney-General would be willing to maintain the

level of funding which the Legal Services Society presently has, at

least until he has had the report from his task force at the end of

June.

[ Page 4446 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the budget and estimates were

laid before this House on February 22 or thereabouts. My estimates have

been debated and approved, and in those estimates an amount of money

was voted by this assembly for legal aid. So the society has known all

along what its budget would be. That budget regrettably is less than it

was last year, but that is the case with all social services in this

province, with the exception of Health and a few other items. They have

known that they must meet that budget. We have been funding additional

overruns caused by the Mountain case through warrant. I have an

obligation, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we don't have continuation of

warrant funding. It's my duty to bring forward the means that will

permit the society — like all other organizations of government and all

branches of government — to live within its budget. While what the

member is saying might be desirable from the standpoint of some, it is

not a course that I can accede to. I do not believe that essential

services need necessarily be cut. I understand that the prime saving

that the society will attempt to make is in the area of

summary

conviction offences unlikely to result in imprisonment, which mostly

means impaired driving. So the consequences of any further cut that the

society will have to make is largely that first-offender impaired

drivers will not get legal aid. That will be the major result. I don't

believe that that is going to result in a major justice disruption.

MS. BROWN: The society has indicated by telegram to the

Attorney-General and also in their press statement that they will be

cutting back in the area of people who will be in danger of

incarceration, not just impaired drivers who are in no danger of

incarceration. However, the minister recognizes that the society needed

additional funds as a result of the Mountain decision. What they are

now asking is the continuation of those funds so that they can continue

their job at least until the report of the task force is presented to

the minister at the end of June. Is the minister prepared to accede to

that request?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General indicated that representation

by counsel for persons charged with any Criminal Code offence as a

first offender.... Surely the Attorney-General wishes to withdraw that

remark. The person has been charged; he's not a first offender.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member has me out of context, because I

was speaking of first offenders in relation to the punishment that

would result. First offenders for impaired driving — people who are

convicted the first time for that offence — don't go to prison. It was

in that context that I was using the expression. People who are dealt

with by the courts as second offenders in impaired driving have a

mandatory minimum of 14 days in prison. They would then be the people

who would be before the courts in jeopardy of their liberty, and that

was the context I used in my remarks.

MR. LAUK: That's one of the problems that the Legal Aid

Society is having with the Attorney-General. I wonder if the

Attorney-General can clarify this. If the person charged with a

criminal offence is treated as a first offender before trial and

conviction, the Attorney-General then argues that cutbacks to the

funding of legal services is, in effect, depriving these people of

counsel, increasing the likelihood of conviction and therefore

increasing the likelihood of a second charge later on where

incarceration is likely. In other words, can the Attorney-General now

argue that it's not a breach of the charter to withdraw funds from

legal services, depriving these people of counsel?

HON. MR. SMITH: I know that there will be some who will argue

that every time a lawyer is not provided free by the state the charter

is being violated.

MR. LAUK: It's not free. The profession is subsidizing this government.

HON. MR. SMITH: Free to the recipient.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Fortunately the decisions on the charter will

be made by those other than myself or the second member for Vancouver

Centre. I really fail to understand his basic contention, because

people who are charged with

summary conviction offences, if they are

found guilty, are not generally or are very sparingly imprisoned. Those

people would be the ones who, under the proposed cut, would not receive

legal aid. People who will likely go to prison if convicted, or charged

with other than

summary conviction offences, will receive legal aid.

When I say "people, " Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to people who meet the

qualifying criteria for legal aid.

MS. BROWN: This is precisely what the Legal Services Society

say they will not be able to continue doing, unless the additional

funding is at least covered until the end of June. The Attorney-General

knows that.

I have two very short questions and I'll run them quickly into one.

Has the Attorney-General given any consideration to the consequences of

the financial cutbacks and the provision of Bill 3 regarding the

cost-sharing agreement for legal aid which we have with the federal

government? The second question is: has the Attorney-General considered

that the province may lose federal funding as a result of withdrawing

legal services in serious court proceedings?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that

the member would certainly join with me in trying to ensure that that

doesn't occur and that we are within the spirit of the old and any new

federal-provincial agreement. But those agreements do not provide that

we must make available public- supported legal defences in all criminal

cases. They do give some leeway. Yes, we have considered that, and we

will do our utmost to remain within the ambit of that agreement.

PROPOSED CURRICULUM CHANGES

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last

evening in Prince George one of the first in a series of public

hearings into the government's proposed curriculum changes affecting

graduation requirements was held. In light of their rejection by most

of the 13 responsible groups appearing at the Prince George hearings,

has the minister decided to reconsider his proposals?

[ Page

4447 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a formal reply or

response as a result of the hearings that were conducted in Prince George last

night. I can assure you, the telephone call which came to me arising out of

those hearings.... A number of constructive suggestions were offered, the very

reason why we are hitting 15 regional centres throughout Prince George. Unfortunately,

Coquitlam rejected the idea. The other school districts did it, but Coquitlam

didn't. It's beyond me why they wouldn't allow their superintendent

to chair it.

The interesting thing about the hearings, Mr. Speaker, is that it

gives an opportunity to those people who have a genuine interest in

education to make constructive suggestions. Most of it has been

positive.

MR. ROSE: It's interesting. When I first asked the minister

whether he intended to conduct public hearings, the day of his

announcement on new curricular changes, he hadn't even considered them.

Now he's making a virtue of necessity.

Since he's made repeated references to public demands for changes,

reflected in his discussion paper on graduation requirements, and the

same minister has refused very substantial public demands for a royal

commission into education, I would like to know whether the minister is

prepared to table the research which verifies a public demand for the

elimination of curricular options, which, besides decimating the fine

arts programs, potentially calls for high school streaming for the

various groups of kids according to their abilities in our high

schools, a retrograde step if I've ever heard of one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the

introduction of a paper on revised curriculum was in effect a response

to demands made by the community — many people within the educational

community and the public at large. One of the things the member seems

to forget is that public education is just that, public education, and

it's not public education for the vested interest of some people within

the educational community. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has proposed a 1950s

model of rigid streaming in high school, and then he sent his officials

off to conduct the hearings. I'd like to ask the minister when he's

going to get out from behind his desk, face the public reaction

four-square, and attend these meetings, instead of merely sending his

paid acolytes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would be delighted to attend every one of those hearings, and as a matter of fact....

MR. ROSE: Why don't you?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right now it's not quite possible to do it each

night of the week or each day of the week while the House is sitting. However,

I will tell you this: it doesn't matter where I go, the criticism — if there's

going to be any — will come from some districts, including my own, with respect

to restraint monetary matters, but when it comes down to examinations and curriculum,

it's "You're doing exactly fine. Keep it up and don't back

down."

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. Mainland Magazine of Vancouver is now the owner of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine. Mr. Jim Pattison, owner of Mainland, has announced his

intention to sell the company. Has the province been advised whether

Mr. Pattison intends also to sell Beautiful British Columbia magazine with this sale of Mainland?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $155,718.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I normally take

part in debates

of this minister's estimates, primarily because my riding, as the

minister is very much aware, accounts for a large volume of the trees

that are sent largely to other areas of the province for manufacturing.

We have currently two large pulp mills, although we used to have three,

operating in my riding.

I don't wish to cover ground which was canvassed yesterday very

competently by my colleagues, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and other members of this House. I

do feel that there are a couple of issues which I would like to discuss

with the minister, and therefore I'll get right to the point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Be brief.

[2:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will, Mr. Minister. As a matter of fact, I

have a group of schoolchildren coming in at 3 o'clock, so I have to be

finished by then.

Mr. Chairman, the first question I wish to pose to the minister —

and I know this was canvassed very briefly yesterday — is a topic which

comes up again and again all over my riding. This deals with the small

business enterprise program. This is a program that was very slow in

getting off the ground. When the minister announced this program some

years ago, they had a lot of problems — I think that was the word the

minister used — in getting the program underway. The program is

underway now; however, the complaint I get is that there is not enough

volume of timber being made available to the small or would-be small

operators on the coast of British Columbia. I can only assume that

perhaps the same situation exists in the interior of the province, but

I don't really know. I do know from the volume of mail and people I

meet with personally that when they apply for timber under this program

it is very difficult to come by.

I raise the matter in this House and question the minister because

he has said on numerous occasions to the large multinational forest

companies — and I'm not denying that they have a place in this province

— "use it or lose it." The reality and the facts are that while the

statistics are very

[ Page 4448 ]

difficult to come by, and this kind of information

is almost impossible to get, it is pretty well conceded by anyone

connected to the forest industry that the large multinationals and

their TFLs simply are not using the large amount of timber supplies

that they have tied up on the coast of British Columbia. They don't

need it. They're not using it, and in some cases have no intentions of

ever using it.

What I'm asking the minister to do today is to consider, on behalf

of those small operators who could provide literally hundreds, if not

thousands, of jobs for the people living on the coast of British

Columbia and in the interior as well, making that timber available to

those people and getting to work on it. Don't say: "Yes, we're doing

this and that.... You've laid off a large number of people in the

Forest Service. You don't have the bodies within your ministry to carry

out a program of the nature I'm talking about at the present time.

I want the minister to know that I'm very much aware of what is

happening in terms of people who are in the business but unable to get

timber, and of people who would like to go into the business of

extracting, where they can, some timber volumes from our forests. As I

said before, the job creation aspect of this alone should prompt you to

give serious consideration to this proposal.

While I'm on that particular subject, Mr. Chairman, we have a very

special problem up on the central coast of British Columbia, and I am

sure the minister's deputy will be familiar with this. There have been

a number of studies of the types and volumes of wood available on the

central coast, and since the present government closed Ocean Falls, Mr.

Williston has been attempting to attract some other type of operation

into that part of the coast of British Columbia. In fact you may be

interested to know that currently, through the offices of Mr.

Williston, the private land that was associated with the Ocean Falls

Corporation is presently being reviewed by competent people to

determine what volumes they have on the private land. But here is the

problem: when Mr. Williston has met with companies — sometimes foreign,

but that's all right — that may be interested in moving into that area

to extract the rather low-grade type of timber — and it's very rough

terrain — we find that the drawback is stumpage rates in that area. In

that area you can't equate the kind of stumpage rates to that low-grade

type of timber — a lot of it is scrub cedar; that kind of thing — with

the type of timber you're likely to get on Vancouver Island and other

areas of the coast. In order to attract companies to start logging

operations and possibly milling operations on that part of the coast,

you have to provide them with incentives. So I'm asking the minister

now to review that particular situation. Consult with Mr. Williston,

who is very well versed.... He was Minister of Forests for many years.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's the guy. That's the same Mr. Williston.

We had our personal disagreements from time to time. Nonetheless, Mr.

Williston is very knowledgeable on this particular subject. I'm urging

you to get together with him and discuss the matter.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: "Bring back Williston," my colleague says.

I'm going to change topics again, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.

I'm getting quite a large volume of mail — I would suppose most MLAs in

the House are — dealing with another matter: the increase in rents on

special-use permits. I have a few letters that I have taken out of my

files. I have forwarded most of these to the people in the Forest

Service. I don't expect you, Mr. Minister, to be familiar with each

individual case. I pulled these letters out of my files as an example

of the kind of thing that's happening.

Harmony Seafoods is a young, small company which is attempting to

produce oysters on Forest Service land, for which they have a

special-use permit. Their rent has gone up 300 percent in the last

year, Mr. Minister. That's a pretty heavy blow to a company that

perhaps should be applying for exemption from rent in this particular

case, since they are in the forefront of what is a relatively small,

new industry starting in British Columbia and dealing with aquaculture,

oyster-growing and that kind of thing. They are having a very difficult

time. Their rent, through the Forest Service, under a special-use

permit, has gone up 300 percent.

I have a number of other letters, but there is no point in going

through them all. I'll use the example of Harmony Seafoods; it's as

good as any. I know that the minister and his deputy know very well

what I'm talking about. I would hope that the minister would seriously

consider.... If you are going to increase the rent under these

special-use permits and bring them up to the level of the Ministry of

Lands, at least bring them up gradually. Don't knock these people over

the head and possibly put them out of business in their first year of

operation, particularly where there are special circumstances involved.

I have one last item. I know this topic has been discussed many

times in the House — this year, last year, for the last 50 years.

Nonetheless, it's worth talking about again. It is the matter of

silviculture and reforestation in this province.

I want to put forward a proposal that may be a little different than

other proposals we've heard before in this House, particularly

yesterday and the day before during debate of these estimates. I've

done a little figuring. To be fair, I must admit that some of the ideas

that I'm going to be putting forward here in a few minutes are not all

my own. Prof. Kimmins from the University of British Columbia has done

quite a bit of work on this. The minister may be familiar with it.

There are some press clippings quoting Prof. Kimmins on the matters

that I'm about to discuss.

In my view, reforestation and silviculture have started to take a

back seat to other activities of this government. Whether it be for the

large companies — the MacMillan Bloedels, B.C. Forest Products and all

the rest of them — or whether it be for the small logger, the long-term

well-being of the industry depends solely on reforestation, thinning,

fertilizing and those kinds of programs. I'm not going to give you a

speech about that; I've done that before. As a result of my last speech

you cut back on the programs some more, so I'd better not talk about

that.

What I'm on about is tying reforestation in with employment. Prof.

Kimmins from UBC suggested that in reforestation, planting and thinning

programs we could put 30,000 people to work in British Columbia today.

I'm quoting the professor. I believe that in my own huge riding, which

extends some 350 miles as the crow flies — or seagull — up the coast of

British Columbia from Howe Sound to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella, we

could employ 1,000 people in reforestation and thinning programs today.

In my riding at the present

[ Page 4449 ]

time the unemployment rate has been reduced

slightly, I'm told, from 36 percent to 34 percent as of last week,

which is some improvement. Just think, Mr. Chairman: we could put 1,000

people to work in my own riding — just in one area of British Columbia

— people who are now perhaps receiving UIC or welfare. Let's say, to

use round figures, that they're receiving somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $500 a month. The figure is probably higher than that,

but I'm just using round figures. For 1,000 people that comes to

$500,000 per month of taxpayers' money through unemployment insurance

or Human Resources payments, or some $6 million per year. If these

people were working a regular 261 days per year, involved in

reforestation and thinning programs, they would not only be not

collecting that taxpayers' money on UIC and welfare, but contributing

in taxes to the government some $4,176,000 a year if you figure it out

on the average net tax payable to federal and provincial governments.

As a net result of all of this, the government would be not only making

money and saving money on payments but giving these people the

opportunity to make a dignified and decent living and improving our

forests for the future at the same time.

The multiplier effect of employing 1,000 people....

I'm not talking about the 30,000 now that the professor talked

about. The multiplier effect generally used by the Employers' Council

of British Columbia is two. So for every job created in reforestation

you would be creating two jobs somewhere else in the community. Even at

this basic wage of $20,880 per year per person on the standard 261 days

per year that we're talking about, these people would not be putting

that money away in the sock or spending it in Reno. They'd be spending

it in their local community for themselves, for their children, for

education and the local stores. So you'd have that multiplier effect as

well taking place, say in my own riding, with the 1,000 people. Surely

we can employ 30,000 people in British Columbia in reforestation.

So to sum it up, I think it makes good economic sense. We would put

people to work, we would improve our forests and help the economy of

British Columbia. I'm sad to say that the government in fact is doing

the reverse. There are fewer reforestation and thinning programs taking

place, fewer people hired and more people laid off in the Ministry of

Forests. I must tell the minister I'm extremely disappointed that the

government is going in that direction.

[2:45]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, just briefly responding to

the member, I guess he wasn't in the House yesterday We did have some

considerable discussion about ways of funding silvicultural work. As I

have asked each of the members here, please don't keep equating

reforestation with silviculture, because reforestation is but one part

of the total silvicultural....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. I know that very well.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You have just said, Mr. Member, that

reforestation is going down in British Columbia when in fact it has

increased every year since I've been the Minister of Forests. As of the

last planting year, I believe it will be in the order of 115 million to

120 million seedlings, which is up 10 or 15 over the previous year.

However, we have cut back on other silvicultural practices through

necessity, and I fully agree that we should be and we will be doing

more as we can find ways of funding it. The suggestion you have made

about harnessing UIC moneys and other agencies is good, and we did

discuss that yesterday. It's an EBAP type of thing that I think we can

have on a more continuous basis.

I still don't think it is possible in a short period of time to

create employment for 30,000 people in the forests in British Columbia

without destroying the forests. We don't have enough trained people. We

don't really know enough about the forest to take on that much at one

time. But we can do more and, indeed, we should be doing more.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're going to have to do it or we're going to lose our forest count.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Don't interrupt.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Your oyster fellow was complaining about

an increase on rentals on his special-use permit. I don't want to be a

part of imposing a cost on him; it might make it difficult for him to

survive. Through necessity we are increasing our rental fees so that at

some point in time in the future we don't have to beef them up even

more. If he has a special problem, bring it to me, Mr. Member, and I'll

be very happy to discuss it with you and him to see if we can't do

something to help him out.

I agree that the former Minister of Forests was well informed; in

fact, it is a policy of this government to have all their Ministers of

Forests well informed. We've been quite consistent in that over the

years.

The mid-coast is a terribly high-cost forest. I'm very surprised,

though, to hear the member for Mackenzie say that these foreign

companies that want to come in and ravage our mid-coast should be given

some incentive, or given the wood to do it. You didn't say that, did

you?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: But that's the impression you could have

created. Yes, we will look at it, and we have had special incentive

rates on the mid-coast in the past. We realize it's a high-cost

operating area. The wood quality is low. In order to get that

moving.... As a matter of fact, a few years ago we did grant a licence

to B.C. Cellulose Corp. for the purpose of trying to — if you remember

— bring some of that low quality cedar down the coast in bundle booms

and make oriented strand board with it. However, their timing was

lousy. The recession hit just about that time, so it wasn't possible to

move ahead. Perhaps now with some recovery in the economy that will be

possible, and we will do anything we can, short of paying them to take

the wood, in order to try to encourage that to happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We can't do that, of course. I think the former Minister of Forests under the NDP government did all kinds of funny things.

In any event, the small business enterprise program will never, ever

have enough wood to satisfy all the demand placed on that program,

because the more wood we have the more people will be coming forward to

insist on sales. I believe last year we put out over five million cubic

metres of

[ Page 4450 ]

wood under the small business program. Your area

has probably a bit larger than the average volume in the small business

program. But we'll never have enough, because we do have to practise

sustained yield forestry. We do have commitments to existing licensees,

who also create employment. We have a policy of selling the accumulated

undercut which took place over this recent recession to the small

business program. We have letters out to some of those licensees you

referred to in the mid-coast advising them that some of the flexibility

we were able to consider in cut control during the recession will not

carry forward now that the recession is coming to an end. They're going

to have to harvest that wood or.... Perhaps the licence forms they have

are not appropriate. If that happens and we recover that wood — and we

well may — then we can make it available in the small business program.

I hope that they don't go broke trying to harvest it, but it does

require, no matter who harvests it, that the people on the end who are

the users of it can use it and make a profit using it. I think that

perhaps wood will flow back, some of it at least, and the contract

loggers, the market loggers, are usually a little bit more efficient.

Bella Coola. On Friday, as a matter of fact, you may be aware that

I'm going up to Bella Coola to meet with some of the small business

operators.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can give you that information. By the way, if you're available to come, we'd love to have you come along with us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be there.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll have to get authority from my

colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser)

to take you on the government aircraft. I'm sure that can be arranged.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The MP is flying me up in his 172.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You take all kinds of risks, don't you? Very well, we'll let you know when we'll be there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We can probably make arrangements for you to join us in travelling as well, if you wish.

I believe that covers the items mentioned, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman and members, I would like to

introduce at this time my wife Donelda, who I guess has just walked out

for a moment, and also my sister Elizabeth Vielbig, who is visiting us

from Portland, Oregon. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: I wouldn't want discussion of the minister's

estimates to pass without rising to support a lot that he and other

members have said regarding the need for accelerated silviculture, and

for programs in that area, to increase and improve the quality of the

forest land base in the province of British Columbia.

I would certainly like to congratulate the minister at this time for

having nearly doubled the amount of seedlings put in the ground during

the last five years. I think the program that he has been pushing and

supporting is good, and it's certainly in the long-term interests of

all citizens of British Columbia. I believe that this entire question

of improving the forest land base is the single most important question

in the province of British Columbia at the present time. Certainly my

greatest priority over the next year or two is to see the conclusion of

a successful federal-provincial program, hopefully one using UIC EBAP

funds to further the programs in silviculture.

When we talk about seedlings, Mr. Chairman, we should not forget

that a lot more work needs to be done in the forest than just planting

trees. We need to clean up the decadent stands that remain in the

province. We've got to get in and do juvenile spacing work. A great

deal of work is needed in the province, and I'm sure that with the

cooperation of the federal government we will see the fulfilment of

these programs in the coming months. We all know that we have unused

greenhouse capacity to grow seedlings. We all know that we have the

people who are qualified and able to do the job. The missing link is

money. I'm confident that if you look at the amount of money being

spent on unemployment, paying people unemployment insurance.... As I've

said on the floor of this House before, maximum UIC benefits are up to

about $255 a week, which figures out to somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $6.40 an hour. Mr. Chairman, I would submit to the House that many

people who are unemployed right now would gladly go to work for $8 to

$10 an hour doing the much-needed work in our forests.

I read the paper put out by Frank Oberle, the Conservative member of

Parliament, which is entitled "The Green Ghetto." I found quite

interesting the lack of priority given our forests by the federal

government. I was somewhat surprised to find that not only do we not

have a minister of forests at the national level in this country, but

the first person to have any responsibility at the federal level in the

area of forests is three down from the minister. I don't think that's

good enough. I'm sure we will see some changes in that in the federal

political arena sometime in the next three to five months.

In looking at EBAP programs, and in looking at negotiating large

sums of money to put into the area of forestry, I don't think it is

good enough to just throw $30 million to $40 million into the fund and

say: "Let's get on with the job." Something that is going to be very

important once these negotiations are complete — and it's part of the

negotiations — is the framework in which the money will be spent — the

rules and regulations. We must make sure that they're not just simple

make-work programs, where 20- to 30-man crews are spread throughout the

province without any kind of discipline or organization. It is my

belief that manageable units of 40 or 80 or 120 hectares should be put

out to tender to the private sector. Let's have these people bid on

them; let's see proper standards of performance set down by the Forest

Service; and let's have a proper inspection on completion, at which

time the final payments would be made to the successful tenderer. I

believe that's the efficient way to get the best value for all

concerned.

As I said, I did not want to take up too much time in this particular debate, but I didn't want the opportunity to pass

[ Page 4451 ]

without recording my full support, on behalf of all

my constituents, for an accelerated program in this area. I believe it

is the most important subject in this Legislature in this session.

MR. MITCHELL: When we enter into this particular debate, the

difference between the philosophies of the NDP opposition and the

Social Credit back-benchers is interesting. I find it quite shocking —

and I say this very humbly and ashamedly, I guess, as an MLA — that

there is not more participation from the back-benchers of the

government in an important program like the forest industry of this

province. When you realize that 50 percent of nearly every dollar comes

in directly through the forest industry, that there is not a

philosophical commitment from the past governments that have sat over

in the government side, be they coalition or be they Social Credit, in

carrying out some of the statements that are made year after year after

year in the forest estimates.... I remember going through some research

I did a number of years ago. I'm sorry that we didn't have Hansard

then, but when Colin Cameron, who was the MLA from Comox at that time,

sat as a CCFer, he was promoting exactly the same philosophical

attitude to our forests: that we must look at the forest industry on a

sustained-yield basis. The planting, the thinning and the proper

silviculture that is needed today was also needed in the late thirties

and early forties. I sat up in the galleries at the back of the Speaker

when Ed Kenney, who was then the coalition Minister of Forests, brought

in the first forest legislation establishing the tree farm licences. He

was saying then, Mr. Chairman, exactly what the minister is saying

today and what professional foresters have said over the years: we must

do proper silviculture within the industry. We cannot just took at

planting more and more seedlings. We must look at the thinning

programs, proper fertilization and the maintenance of our fire roads.

[3:00]

When Ed Kenney brought in that piece of legislation, in '47, '48 or

'49 — in that general area — this was going to be the answer to

sustained yield in the forest industry. After 30 years we're in many

cases in worse condition than we were then. We have not had the

philosophical commitment that the forest must be maintained, that the

forest must be harvested properly and that those who work in that

industry — the 300,000-odd people who are directly and indirectly

connected to harvesting or processing our forest resources — still do

not have a sense of security in where they will be going in their job.

Whole communities, Mr. Chairman, are still in that very insecure

feeling that in many cases they know that they have worked for a

company which for many years has made a substantial profit but has not

upgraded that particular mill or plant in the way that it should have

been so it would be competitive today in a changing economy. I think

this blame cannot be solely given to those who own the companies but

should be placed on the shoulders of many Ministers of Forests who

didn't have the guts to fight in their ministry, in their cabinet, in

their caucus, for more money and longer range planning.

It's easy to say that this year is a bad year. When the years were

good and there was lots of money being made, no one thought of it, but

the long-term commitment for planning has to start in the ministry, it

has to be supported by the ministry and it has to be supported by the

government of our province. In my own riding — and this is something I

find very shocking, which I've brought to the attention of the minister

and of the deputies and of everyone, and there has been pressure from

many sources — we have one little mill in Sooke. Even today, Sooke

Forest Products are forced to buy cedar products from Alaska. Five

years ago they were buying hemlock from Port Angeles. Sooke is right in

the middle of large blocks of timber. I feel that the minister and his

ministry have a responsibility to the community of Sooke, to those who

work in that mill, and to the owner of that mill, who has continually

poured money into upgrading and making that particular mill more

efficient and competitive so that it can continue to survive in this

sliding economic time. There must be a way that we in British Columbia

can say to those enterprising developers and owners of a mill that if

they can continue to remain competitive, they will be guaranteed some

supply of affordable logs.

The big problem we have in this province is that we have a double

standard of log values. I believe that stumpage is set on the Vancouver

log prices. Then you have the price that no one will talk about or

really reveal — the true price — and that is for the export of the raw

logs. When I phone Ottawa to make inquiries about the value on 1,000

cubic metres or 100 cubic metres — or whatever the new system of

grading timber is — that is confidential information, because that is

information from a particular company when it is exporting logs on the

open market. It's hard to find the real values. One of the figures I

did come up with.... Back in 1973 British Columbia was exporting

finished lumber to the U.S. for around $175 per thousand board feet; at

the same time, the Oregon companies were exporting raw logs out of

Oregon to Japan for about $280. So looking at that from a company's

point of view, maybe they can make more money on the export market from

a raw log, but as a community and as a province our first

responsibility, I think, is providing jobs to Canadians and British

Columbians.

I think the ministry has an obligation to look at what prices our

logs are getting, where some of these logs are coming from, and what

effect it's having on the community. One particular mill in my own

riding, Victoria Plywood, was originally owned by the Newt Cameron

interests. That particular operation was bought by Pacific Logging.

What they really wanted was to purchase the timber up in the Leechtown

area, the area that borders the Victoria water system. Now they have

two companies: on the one hand Victoria Plywood, owned by Pacific

Logging, and on the other hand the Pacific Logging division that's

logging it. The cost of logs keeps going up to that particular plywood

company, which now they say is uneconomical to run. It's uneconomical

because the cost of the supply of the resources needed is, on the

books, getting to be in excess of what you can turn out plywood

profitably for.

I think there has to be some kind of a study of what prices

companies are charging to firms within their own conglomerate, and what

prices the community is paying. It is more beneficial for the bottom

line, as my colleagues across the floor keep saying, that the company

is going to receive, from selling the logs on the open market —

especially into the Japanese and Chinese markets today.... I find it

hard that we in British Columbia see jobs being lost time after time

when countries like Vietnam and Indonesia have now stopped the export

of raw logs. Although a well-developed province that depends for 50

percent of its revenue on the development of its forest industries, we

still continue to allow the export of logs. I know the minister will

stand up and say:

[ Page 4452 ]

"Yes, well, Pacific Logging has the timber from a Crown grant, from the

old E&N land claims." I believe that the Cameron property was, private

property and not part of a TFL, and I know all the bureaucratic doubletalk I'm

going to get. But we must look at this from a long-term position. How is it

going to affect those who live in B.C., and especially those living in my community?

I've heard all kinds of speeches made by my colleagues over here

about the way the timber should be harvested and replanted, and the

ideal way of looking at the harvesting of our resources in a perfect

operation. I ask the minister to look at the the Victoria water board —

which has just a small block of timber in a very select area just out

of Victoria — and the revenue that water board has received from the

block of timber in their water reserve, the type of harvesting that

they have done, and the reforestation practices that they have

maintained. It makes the large corporations in this province who have

the vast blocks of timber look shameful. These are the things that we

have to look at from the overall point of view of where we are going to

go.

A lot of us who are interested in politics or in the development of

British Columbia were happy when Ed Kenney brought in the original

program, and it's too bad that this chamber cannot hear his words:

"Sustained yield is here in British Columbia forever. The forest

industry will know where they're going, and those who are working in it

will have some security." I find that every year we get the same

promises — the same promises that were given in the coalition days, the

same promises that have come through many Social Credit ministers — and

we're getting them today. I don't hold that the present minister's

promises are any worse than those that were made before, but they sure

are no better. We haven't improved.

I found it interesting to read a report that came from the

professional foresters after they met with the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis). The Minister of Finance should be standing up and

speaking out on this. He stated to the executive of the professional

foresters that the government is very concerned about the net cost of

the forestry program of the province. "Forestry is not paying its way."

Why isn't it paying its way after the many years we've had tree-farm

licences, sustained yield and forest management? After all the money

that has been made out of that forest, we are in a situation that it is

not paying its way. It is not paying its way because the present

minister has been hoodwinked by the companies, he is being misled by

his advisers, or he is uninformed. There must be some reason when the

Minister of Finance tells the executive of the professional foresters

that the forest industry is not paying its way.

[3:15]

When you go through some of the many documents that have been

prepared this year.... In 1980, when I first arrived in this House for

the second or third time, the minister brought in his five-year program

— a wonderful program. The second year it was on schedule, but every

year since it has gone down, and this year we're looking at a 30

percent reduction in total forestry expenditure. In the harvesting

program we're looking at a 47 percent reduction. We all talk about

silviculture, and the minister can give the platitudes as well as

anybody as to what is needed, but in the silvicultural program there is

a reduction of 32 percent. These are the problems that we're being

faced with in British Columbia, and I don't think we have the

commitment from this government that it's going to be any different. I

don't think the government is going to change its attitude unless the

minister starts fighting a lot harder in his cabinet and a lot harder

with his own ministry staff. I know, looking from here, some of them

are bigger than he is, but I say this very humorously. We must look at

it a lot differently.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another one of the statements that Mr. Curtis made to the executive of the

professional foresters: "Mr. Curtis seemed receptive but made no commitment

on forestry make-work programs." I think the attitude is that proper silviculture,

the replanting, the thinning, the protection of the fire roads is a make-work

program. It is not a make-work program; it is one of the fundamental, important

needs of protecting our industry. It is not a make-work program that can be

turned on when there are a lot of unemployed and to say that we're going

to tie it in with your UIC or your welfare programs as we have done under the

EBAP or under the NEED or the Canada Works program. They are all excellent programs

— not because they subsidize UIC, not because they subsidize welfare, but because

they are needed in the industry. But we still tend to look at them as make-work

programs. I've toured some of the projects in the Muir Creek, Sooke and

Cowichan Lake areas, and I've talked to those involved. It didn't matter

what particular subsidized program they are involved in; they are proud of the

work they are doing. They are proud of the new opportunities they have had to

learn other skills and to understand some of our forest problems. I talked to

the foresters from the companies involved. I know the deputy and those in the

ministry believe that we must go that way. They're proud of the work they

have accomplished with a make-work program. We continue to look at it in the

same vein as we have for many years looked at the staying of those on welfare.

We haven't looked at it as something that is important. It's something

that has to be integrated into the industry. It has to be integrated into the

minister's own ministry's philosophy that when they meet with companies

they are not continually hoodwinked into saying: "Well, this year is a

bad year, and last year we had to spend our money on building a new plant in

the southern U.S.A." All the excuses have been given over the years. We

must go back to the days when Colin Cameron was promoting it back in the thirties

and when Ed Kenney was talking about it in the mid forties to late forties and

when the minister himself was talking about it in the eighties, with his five-year

program. I think we have to look at it and do something.

So I ask the minister again in closing, Mr. Chairman, if he will do

three things. I ask him to look to all those contacts I know he has for

guaranteeing a supply of logs to mills and those who are processing our

timber, not only in Sooke but in any part of British Columbia — that

they will be guaranteed a supply of affordable logs, before logs and

jobs are exported out of this province. Granted, I'm very political and

I'm looking at the Sooke Forest Products operation. But the same

operation, the same shortage of logs, the same problems that many small

mills have.... When it comes to a guaranteed supply, though they might,

live right in the forest of that particular area, they cannot get

affordable logs. I think there should be some comparison between the

export price for logs and the price put on the Vancouver log market. I

think we must look at how it's affecting the small industries.

I ask the minister to compare the reforestation programs that any of the large companies.... In my riding I think I

[ Page 4453 ]

have one of the better ones, Pacific Logging. What they have done with the lands they took over in the last ten years....

They have made some remarkable changes in reforesting that area. I

think we should compare what is being done in the Victoria watershed,

which is a small area: the amount of money raised from the timber on

that land; the amount of equipment they've developed. They were in the

industry to build water lines, and they got into forest exploitation.

They've done an effective job. I ask the minister to make some of these

studies, to make some of these guarantees.

Again, I hope that someday when I go out to Sooke they will say they

are now getting affordable cedar, instead of bringing it in from either

Alaska or the Port Angeles area. To me, in British Columbia that is

like taking coal to Newcastle. There's something wrong with it. There's

something wrong with the ministry. There definitely must be some lack

of action by the ministry.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to speak again in this minister's

estimates, as I had my say yesterday afternoon. But, Mr. Chairman, I

couldn't sit in my office, listening to my monitor, and let go by what

has just been said on the floor of this House in regard to the export

of raw logs from the province of British Columbia. I'll probably get

some flak from both sides of the House for what I'm going to say, and

probably even from some of my constituents. Nevertheless, I think it's

about time that it was said in this chamber and in this province that

we are really and truly short-sighted if we as legislators, in the

province that has the largest wood supply of any province in this great

country of Canada, think that we can continually stay out of a market

which is crying out for raw logs in today's world. We can't do it. It's

impossible. If we do it, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

As I said yesterday, we can't continually expect our customers to take

what it is we want to sell to them. We can no longer afford that luxury

in today's world.

I was in Beijing in the People's Republic of China for nine days in

December 1983, just four months ago. I know what it is that that market

is looking for out there. I know how it is that we in British Columbia

can claim a great portion of that vast new market available to us in

the orient. There are 1.1 billion people in the People's Republic of

China. Recently on our television sets we saw where the President of

the United States was in the People's Republic of China openly trying

to sell raw logs. If we think we in British Columbia can sit idly by

and not expect to take

part in that part of the world market, as far as

the forest industry is concerned, we are absolutely fooling ourselves,

Mr. Member.

We've got to sell what the world market is looking for — at the same

time as it is looking for it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt

to sell some of our dimension lumber to that market. But unless we are

flexible and willing to sell them raw logs as well, they're going to

buy them from someplace else. They don't have to buy wood from British

Columbia. If you take a look right now at what the People's Republic of

China is buying in the world in the way of wood products, you'll see

that very clearly. On the world market they buy 850 boatloads of wood

products per year. Check your port logs to see how many of those boat

loads are coming out of the greatest supplier of wood in the world —

British Columbia. Practically none, Mr. Member. In fact, the State of

Washington in the United States, which is about one-fifth the size of

British Columbia, is selling them ten times the amount of wood that

British Columbia is. If we want a part of that market — and I'm saying

to the minister today that we should be out looking and begging for a

part of that market — we've got to sell raw logs. We cannot say to that

market: "You have to buy our dimension lumber." Mr. Member, ask your

loggers if they care whether the log they're producing goes into a boat

and across the sea or they don't work because we can't sell plywood or

lumber that's made out of that log. I'm sure you'll find out how they

think.

Mr. Chairman, we have got to be flexible. We have got to bend with

the world market, and the world market today is for at least a portion

of a raw material. We can build an export market in the People's

Republic of China, for instance, that would absolutely boggle your

mind. But as well as attempting to sell them what we produce as a

finished product, we have to sell them some of what they wish, and

that's raw materials. We can no longer afford the luxury of the

short-sightedness that I hear time after time after time in this

chamber. We have an overabundance, and if we want....

Even this afternoon I hear speaker after speaker talking about the

replenishment of our forests: more money for seeding, for seedlings,

for silviculture. The only way we're going to get more money, Mr.

Chairman, is to sell a product on the world market. If we're going to

have our fair share of that world market we have got to be flexible

enough to sell that world market what it wants to buy, and at this

point that includes raw logs.

I'm proud to stand up here and say, as one who has spent over 15

years in the forest industry of this province, that we have got to be

flexible with the market. In order to entice that business, we have to

sell that buyer some of what he wants to buy — in this case raw logs. I

don't think we in this chamber can afford to be as short-sighted as to

say that we're exporting jobs by exporting raw logs; that's not the

case at all. I see many a logger at this point in our economy all over

this province, particularly on the coast and in the riding that that

member is sent here by....

[3:30]

I would suggest, as I have suggested in this chamber before, that in

this case half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. The key issue here

is not the exporting of logs or jobs; the key issue is getting British

Columbia a share of that very huge market that's out there right now.

They're getting it from other areas of the world. Logs are being

exported — rightly so, and proudly so — by our neighbours to the south.

Logs in abundance are being exported by the U.S.S.R., which

incidentally, if you take a look at a world map, is a whole lot closer

to China than we are. Logs are being exported by many of the countries

of Africa. Logs are being exported by South America, and more so as

those countries develop. So we can't sit idly by and say no, we won't

export raw material. We're quite happy to import raw material to make

jobs at Kitimat, but we're not willing to sell to our buyers what it is

they want, and in doing so entice larger sales in the area of that

which we manufacture, such as plywood and dimension lumber.

Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't sit idly in my office and let this go

by. We have a marvellous opportunity here to do a little bargaining, to

go out to that world market and say to the People's Republic of China:

"Yes, we'll sell you some logs. Sure we will. But at the same time

you've got to buy some of our plywood, our dimension lumber and pulp."

Then and only then will we create those jobs that the members opposite

are talking about.

[ Page 4454 ]

MR. SKELLY: I'll be very brief. I always appreciate following

the member for Omineca, because he provides a number of speech notes.

I'm grateful for the fact that the debate in the House brought the

member from his enforced idleness in his office. It's not necessary for

a member to be idle when he's in his office; but I appreciate the fact

that the debate encouraged him to come into the House, because the

devil finds work for idle hands and it's better that the member be in

here than outside the House.

Unfortunately he was talking about the export of raw logs and

encouraging the export of raw logs from the province. He mentioned that

the state of Washington exports and has traditionally exported a

tremendous number of logs from that state. I understand that at one

time the Ministry of Forests here in British Columbia did a study and

found out that if B.C. significantly increased its export of raw logs,

and cut into some of the markets being exploited by the state of

Washington and the loggers down there, they might turn around and begin

to sell into their domestic market and in fact cut into some of the

domestic market for finished lumber that we enjoy in the United States.

I'm a bit concerned about that, and I wonder if that is a concern of

the minister. Or has he done any studies on that? It appears that the

Pacific Northwest loggers, after having failed in their bid to impose

punitive duties on the B.C. forest industry, have now taken it upon

themselves to further develop and expand their markets within the

United States and to take up a part of our market share that we

previously enjoyed in the United States. I'm wondering if this is a

reaction to what has happened as a result of our increasing export of

raw logs from the province of British Columbia, if we are competing

with their markets, and if, in fact, we may be risking a great deal

more by competing for the sale of raw logs in traditional Washington

state markets, so that they are now competing with British Columbia

finished forest products within the United States, which could result

in further losses to the British Columbia forest industry and economy.

The member mentioned that he had spent 15 years in the forest

industry, and the minister claims there has been some improvement since

he left. I'm glad to hear that.

The member also mentioned Kitimat and the fact that we bring in raw

resources and manufacture aluminum here in British Columbia, and we

don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. But the member, of course,

neglected the other part of the equation, which is that we add cheap

energy to the raw materials we import at Kitimat and we export that

energy in the form of unfinished aluminum ingots. To produce that

energy has resulted in the loss of thousands upon thousands of acres of

productive forest land in the member's own constituency, and if we had

had that forest land we might have been much better off at the present

time. But unfortunately, those arrangements and agreements were signed

a long time before we gave consideration to the costs and benefits of

developing a project like the Kemano project and the Alcan project. I

would hope that we would give more consideration to the development of

the Kemano 2 project, and possibly consider the private member's bill

placed on the order paper by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which

demands greater value added to aluminium products within British

Columbia.

What we're seeking for aluminum in this province, through the member

for Skeena's private member's bill, we're also seeking for forest

products in British Columbia. We should make every effort possible to

stop the export of raw logs and make sure that those logs are

processed, that value is added to those logs here in British Columbia

and that jobs are created here in British Columbia. That's what this

party is demanding in the Legislature, and that's what we would like to

see happen. So we do disagree with the member for Omineca on that

point, and we hope that the minister isn't persuaded further by his

arguments than he currently is.

One thing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) brought up

during his debate — one of his few contributions to debate in the

Legislature — was that he felt there was insufficient debate on forest

issues in the House, and insufficient attention paid to forest issues.

One of the problems with that, of course, is that the only opportunity

we really get is when legislation comes down or when we're debating the

minister's estimates in the House. For many years, under the W.A. C.

Bennett government prior to 1972, and also up to 1974 under the NDP

government, the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries met

in this Legislature, was assigned terms of reference, and assisted in

recommending solutions to certain problems that it was assigned in

those terms of reference. Members from both sides of the House were

able to get together in a problem-solving approach to deal with

problems referred to them by the House. Members of the forestry

profession, people from the Ministry of Forests and people from the

forest industry were also able to provide a measure of education to

those MLAs so that they were aware of how the forests were managed,

what research was being done and simple thing like how stumpage is

calculated in the province so that members were much better informed on

forestry issues as a result of the operation of that committee.

Since this government came to office in 1975 and was re-elected in

'79 and '83, the Select Standing Committee on Environment and

Resources, which replaced the forestry and fisheries committee, has

never met or been assigned terms of reference by this minister. This

government has never offered MLAs and the public the opportunity to

meet together to discuss in a problem-solving approach the questions

that face the forest industry rather than dealing with those questions

across the floor in a very political way.

There's only one other thing that I would like to bring up before we

get to some of the votes in this ministry's estimates, and that is the

issue of research. It was brought up briefly by my colleague for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday. At that time she talked

about the lack of budget being assigned to research by the ministry and

the fact that the budget has actually declined over the last several

years. Going back to the ministry's annual reports and to the estimates

book, in 1981-82 the budget was $8.4 million. In 1982-83 it went up to

$9.2 million. In 1983-84 it went back to the same level it was at in

1981-82, and now we're $1 million below what we were in 1981-82, not

counting the depredations that inflation have made on the forest

research budget in that time and the results of increased costs.

I would like to refer to a recent study done by Roger Hayter of

Simon Fraser University. He found that B.C., with 10.6 percent of the

total North American timber harvest, accounted for only 2 percent of

North American professional research development employment in the area

of forestry. I think it is a sad commentary on British Columbia and on

the government of British Columbia and on this Minister of Forests that

we have such a very low level of forestry research and forest products

research done in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 4455 ]

I understand that the federal government has increased its

commitment to a small extent in this area, but still the research and

development that is done by corporations within this province and by

the government in this province is pretty shabby. It's much lower than

it should be. As a result, many of our forest companies are paying as

licensees to holders of patents outside the country. To give one

example in Roger Hayter's study: in 1980 Scott Paper paid $850,000 to

its parent company in the United States for research and development

services. It's estimated that the total Canadian forest industry may

spend as much as $200 million on imported research and development or

patented processes that are patented outside the United States. As a

result, there is a tremendous outflow of funds from the Canadian forest

industry which goes to patents held in the United States. A lot of that

research and development may have been done in Canada, but the patents

are held in the United States. That generates an outflow of capital

that could have been used in the Canadian forest industry for the type

of research and development and the type of investigations into

silviculture and into product development that we should be doing in

this province.

It's unfortunate that the minister has not placed as much emphasis

as should be placed on research and development both in the private

sector and in the government sector. So the minister has fallen down

pretty seriously in our eyes in that area. We're not only dropping down

in the amount spent on research and development in his own budget this

year over last year, but we're now $1 million less than what we paid

for research in 1981-82.

Mr. Chairman, we've spent a number of hours here in the Legislature

talking about the administration of the Ministry of Forests and the

minister's performance in his post as minister. We're simply not

satisfied with the answers that we've received from the minister and

not satisfied with the work that has been done in the forests of this

province in order to improve the quality of our forests and in order to

create additional jobs in the forest.

As a result, I would like to move the following motion; that vote 31

be reduced by $1. The motion is seconded by the member for Atlin.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order, and the Chair appreciates the fact that it is the standard motion.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the reason we are presenting this

motion is that we feel that under this minister's direction there has

been a declining commitment to intensive silviculture in this province.

As a result we are losing ground in terms of replanting and replacing

our forests and making sure that we have a viable and thrifty stand of

forest in this province that will be available to our generation and

also to future generations. We feel that this minister and his

government have exhibited a lack of concern for jobs in the forest

industry by their failure to stem job losses due to the lack of

reforestation and silviculture and also by their agreement to increase

export of raw logs and raw resources from the province. We feel that

this minister has failed to successfully negotiate a long-term

intensive silvicultural agreement with the federal government, which

has resulted in delaying that intensive silvicultural program. In fact,

we feel that this is part and parcel of the government's conscious plan

to delay economic recovery in this province and to further depress the

economy so that the government, when 1986 or 1987 rolls around and it's

time of the next election, by delaying these investments will be able

to show that there is a larger jump in the gross national product and

in the productivity of the economy than there would have been had the

government not purposefully depressed economic performance in this

province. We feel that that's the major reason for delaying this

intensive silvicultural program, not the excuses that the minister has

given, because other provinces have seen the urgency of this program

and have entered into agreements with the federal government to enrich

those programs.

We also feel that the minister has failed to encourage

diversification of tenures and has failed to encourage greater

participation of small business in the forest industry and especially

in the logging sector. He has failed to encourage the expansion and

diversification of the products that our forests produce in order to

expand the number of products to improve our markets and to increase

the value added to our forest resources in British Columbia. He has

failed to provide additional research and development which would

assist us in improving the quality of our forests and also in

stimulating research and development in the private sector that would

improve the range and value of the products that our forest industry

distributes and markets.

We also are concerned about the minister's comments yesterday where

he failed to recognize the existence of aboriginal nations in this

province, in particular the Nishga nation, and failed to recognize

their rights and claims to the resources of this province which are

going to have to be negotiated and resolved before we can have any real

progress made by those nations in developing their economies and

developing their independence within British Columbia's society.

In general we feel that the minister has failed to manage the

forests of this province in the interests of the citizens of this

province. He has failed to recognize the democratic right of citizens

to have an effective role in the decisions made to manage and harvest

the forests of this province and the effective participation in the

development of policies and allocation of tenures. Most importantly he

has failed to recognize the rights of future generations in the forest

resources of this province and the obligation of people in this

generation to act as good stewards of the resource to maintain the

forests of this province in their vigorous and sustainable condition.

For this reason the opposition does not have confidence in the

minister. We have heard two speakers from the other side of the House

who have had the same feelings about the minister's performance in

specific areas, and we hope that members of the House will vote their

conscience on this motion and call upon the minister and the government

to improve their performance in managing the forests of this province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I must speak to the

amendment. The first thing I have to say is that after such a terrible

confrontation I can no longer support the member for the leadership of

the NDP. I'm going to have to take my badge off. No, I'll keep it as a

souvenir.

I will respond to some of the comments made by the member very

briefly, as we have been over most of this ground, and also to comments

made by both the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).

[ Page 4456 ]

We have not yet concluded an agreement of a kind that we would like

with the federal government, but we are certainly negotiating toward

such an agreement. I think as the case was with the current agreements

which we have just extended, when we do conclude an agreement it will

be the best in Canada and will be directed toward management of the

forests and not toward other activities such as subsidizing industry or

simply building roads for industry. Our agreement will be a forest

management one and that alone. We are continuing to negotiate and will

conclude an agreement. Interestingly enough, today I signed a copy of

the final funding agreement with our federal counterpart. They sent out

understand the French version, but I had my staff look at it very

carefully, and amazingly we found errors in the French version which we

had to correct before sending it back to the federal government. But

that is concluded now, and we'll be getting on with that management

work.

We have not been losing ground in forests in replanting; we have

been gaining ground each year. We have not gained ground as quickly as

we would like to have in other areas of forest management, but we will

do that as we can afford it, even though we've had to borrow money this

year to carry on those necessary programs of government.

I have not agreed to log exports. I am very much against the export

of logs and cannot agree with the member for Omineca that we should be

encouraging log exports. Some log exports have gone to China, as they

have to other countries this year, not for any specific reason, but the

fact is that they have gone though the procedure, which is government

policy, and has been for years. It was the government policy, even when

that party was government, that no logs be exported unless they are

surplus to the needs of the province. As a matter of fact, because of

our insistence in doing this, and in continually telling other

countries, such as China, that it is not our policy to export logs,

British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the world that exports

manufactured lumber products to the People's Republic of China. They

respect our position and our policy regarding log exports.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talked about the Victoria

water board making money with their forest management. Indeed they can.

If all the forests in British Columbia were as high a quality log as is

that forest and were as close to the market as is that area, then we

would be making a much healthier return for the province than we do,

because we do have to manage our whole forest. We have to take the

low-quality logs as well. Victoria Plywood did not close because of log

costs; they closed because of markets and increasing general cost of

producing plywood. Strangely enough, Hershell Smith of Sooke Forest

Products has never really pursued a supply of logs with the government.

As a matter of fact, you will recall that a few years ago 50 percent of

Sooke Forest Products was owned by the Hershell Smith family, and the

other 50 percent was owned by Pacific Forest Products. Negotiations

were underway with Pacific Forest Products and the Smith family for

Pacific Forest Products to buy out the Smith half because they did have

a log supply. At the last moment, however, the tables were turned, and

Hershell Smith and his family and partners bought out Sooke Forest

Products. They do not have a log supply and have not pursued one, and

in my discussions with him Hershell Smith seems to think he is better

off having it that way, because he can see how much money many people

are losing on the logging part of the total timber manufacturing

process.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Scotsman is babbling something I don't understand. I wish he would go back to his squash game.

I think I've covered most of those points, Mr. Chairman. I can't

support the motion. I need the money. I can't afford to take that

reduction in pay, so I'll be voting against the motion.

[4:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

Cocke

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 31

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Vote 31 approved.

Vote 32: forest and range management, $206,096,703 — approved.

Vote 33: fire suppression program, $46,000,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: This is indeed a serious piece of legislation. I

wish to discuss this bill in some depth and mention some of the

concerns that I have. I'm sure many of the points have already been

mentioned by our side of the House, but I think they should be said

again and again.

[ Page 4457 ]

In the province of British Columbia there is grave concern among

many people of many political persuasions that we are stepping back to

the good old dark days, as the Socreds might think, in terms of human

rights. At a time in the world when there are so many atrocities in

other parts of the world in terms of human rights and human dignity,

the preservation of what we consider to be a just and civilized society

in the world.... When we read daily in our newspapers of what's

happening in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Poland and the Soviet

Union, the non-existence of human rights there, we in the free western

democratic world have a responsibility to establish models of human

rights legislation. We should be the guiding lights. Our legislation,

even in British Columbia, should be second to none in preserving human

rights and human dignity and the rights of minorities. In these

troubled times in the world, where millions of people are being

persecuted for various reasons, we should not be endorsing that by

weakening our Human Rights Code and introducing a piece of legislation

that really is, I think, an insult to the majority of British

Columbians. We in this Legislature should be saying unanimously that we

want a piece of legislation that we can all be proud of — all British

Columbians of all political persuasion or racial descent or ethnic

background, whether you're disabled physically or mentally.

In my estimation and in the estimation of our party and of thousands

of British Columbians, this legislation is not adequate. The minister

has had the opportunity in the last few weeks to reflect and think

about this course of action, to take a look at this legislation and

listen not just to the well-known human rights groups but to groups

that don't always express themselves the loudest, like church

organizations, individuals and ordinary citizens, who have, I'm sure,

said to many MLAs in this House, since the reintroduction of human

rights legislation for the province of British Columbia, that we can do

better than that piece of legislation.

All of us.... I guess I happen to be one of the lucky ones in

British Columbian or Canadian society. Like the majority of us in this

House, I'm white, come from the right background and don't have any

particular automatic marks of being disabled. Most of us have never

undergone any kind of overt or insidious discrimination, or any

discrimination. I have to say quite candidly that over the last few

years I have had to take a look at some of my positions, because very

often it's difficult. Because of the way we're brought up and the

stereotypes of what's considered normal in society, which we take for

granted, we think it's okay. That's why we need the toughest

legislation possible in British Columbia: because often we don't

recognize discrimination or violation of human rights. If every one of

us were to look at ourselves, we all, somewhere along the line, have

violated some fundamental human rights in some of our attitudes.

It's an ongoing task to ensure that those who are not able to

protect themselves, or those who belong to a minority group, or those

who belong to a group that is not necessarily accepted by the majority,

for whatever reason, are protected. So often we make up our minds about

groups or individuals based on prejudices, upbringing, what we've

learned in school or in various books that have intuitively put into

our minds notions of discrimination. We've always got to be aware of

that. We've always got to be strengthening our respect for human rights.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I am really disappointed that that member over

there, who happens to be a minority in the province of British

Columbia, has the audacity to sit and defend this piece of legislation.

You really should have the guts and the determination to speak up

against your party and this filthy piece of legislation, Mr. Member.

You should have the determination. You know what this piece of

legislation is. It is a law to discriminate.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: How can you defend this?

MR. MOWAT: With no problems at all.

MR. BLENCOE: You're going to have problems, Mr. Member.

The minister has had ample opportunity to review this important

basic human issue in the province of British Columbia. He set up an

advisory group of highly regarded people who were prepared to consult

with this government and offer suggestions, and bring in alternatives.

Yet we know that the ink was hardly dry on that report, and obviously

the legislation had been drawn up with no intent to listen to that

advisory group.

What's happening in British Columbia is very worrying in terms of

this government's so-called superficial belief in consulting various

interest groups and concerned groups. Over and over we have seen that

they give this impression of consulting and concern, yet by their own

actions and their haste to introduce legislation, they can't even see

and study the report before the legislation is written and before us.

In this particular aspect, the consultation process was a hoax and a

cruel joke to those thousands of British Columbians who had hoped for

more in terms of human rights legislation in British Columbia.

Bill 11 removes protection against discrimination without reasonable

cause. The effect is to remove protection against discrimination on

grounds such as age, sexual orientation, language ability and any other

ground not explicitly named. Mr. Speaker, that is a weakening of one of

the most basic and fundamental principles we have accepted in a

civilized, progressive and democratic society.

[4:15]

During these troubled times in the world, and with what you see

happening in other jurisdictions, we have a responsibility to show the

way, to show that we believe in the toughest human rights legislation

and the protection of every single British Columbian and their rights

under law, and of their ability to have their case heard before an

impartial organization or tribunal or human rights commission, not this

council that the minister has set up — or will set up. We've already

seen in the Residential Tenancy Act the partial kind of arbitration

system that is going to be set up in the tenancy situation, with

appointments by the minister. We had a commission which was independent

of government and at arm's length from government interference. We're

now going to have this quasi-political council that may indeed hear

cases — or may not hear cases, if it deems them to be frivolous or

vexatious. or not appropriate or not in good faith. This bill is not

fitting in terms of the needs of 1984. British Columbians, I believe,

deserve better and want more.

An interesting story came out of Vancouver very recently. It appeared in the Times-Colonist on April 19, 1984. I think

[ Page 4458 ]

it's an indication that unless we have tough human

rights legislation and protection, and a quick system to have the

consequences of discrimination taken care of by an impartial

organization, this kind of story will become the norm.

"A local black secondary school student who was told

by his principal not to get within three feet of any white girl is an

example of the type of racial problems which exist in today's school

system, a workshop at the national conference of principals and

vice-principals was told Wednesday. Dick Durante, a high school

principal, said that a working committee on race relations set up by

the Vancouver School Board was told by the black student that,

following the principal's instructions, he 'walked around the school

grounds with a yardstick in front of him.'"

"Don't get within three feet of a white girl" was the principal's

instruction to this black student in Vancouver.

This is the kind of thing....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did they fire the principal?

MR. BLENCOE: There's no followup story to this, Mr. Minister,

but you may wish to take a look at this. I am saying that this sort of

thing cannot be even thought of as being endorsed.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member asks if the law is going to change

attitudes. It is the responsibility of government to express what they

believe should be the ultimate in rights and against discrimination.

Are you saying that you are going to pander to the most base common

denominators and attitudes? That's where this government is at, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. MOWAT: You can't legislate away attitudes.

MR. BLENCOE: No, but you can set principles and ideals, what you believe in, Mr. Member; that's what you should be setting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: We have a responsibility to set the ideal and to

talk about the principle. I agree that we can't change attitudes. But

does that mean we have to succumb to some of the worst attitudes that

exist in British Columbia? Do we have to succumb to those who believe

that a black student shouldn't talk with, or go out with or be seen

with a white student? That attitude may prevail with a lot of people. I

know that in my own constituency there are attitudes towards the

Indo-Canadian community. Those attitudes may exist, but we as

legislators have a responsibility to say we don't approve, and there

have to be tough consequences in law for those particular attitudes.

Under this piece of legislation you will have to prove intent to

discriminate. You ask any person in the legal profession: to prove

intent is extremely difficult. By removing the "reasonable cause"

section, this government is clearly pandering to those who want to

continue the attitudes that you say prevail, Mr. Member. But you want

to legalize those attitudes, you want to continue those attitudes and

you don't want to speak up against those attitudes. This Legislature

should be doing more than that.

Discriminatory advertisements and application forms are another

issue of this particular bill. Bill 11 restores the prohibition against

discriminatory advertisements, but there is no

section like that in the

existing code which deals with discriminatory application forms.

Therefore an applicant could be required to furnish information about

matters such as race, religion and political belief. We all thought we

had got away from those kinds of questions. What's your political

belief? What's your religion? What's your marital status? Those have

got nothing to do with your ability to attain employment. Mr. Speaker,

this piece of legislation will allow those kinds of questions to be

asked again.

I've already talked about the Human Rights Commission and the human

rights branch being replaced by this new council. My major concern with

that, of course, is that it's not objective, it's not impartial, and

our understanding is that the staffing of this particular council is

very dubious. We're not quite sure exactly how it's going to be done.

The minister has said that the council will rely on staff from other

parts of the ministry. I suspect, Mr. Minister, that all this council

will be is a front for this piece of legislation that calls itself

human rights legislation. It will be nothing more — or nothing less.

British Columbia is entitled to a better piece of legislation than

this. Complaints of violations will be filed with the council, which

will be in charge of investigating them and deciding whether they

should proceed. Complaints must be filed by the person discriminated

against or by someone else on behalf of that person, with that person's

consent. For example, a member of the public who witnesses a violation

apparently cannot file a complaint without finding and obtaining the

consent of the victim of the discrimination.

As I have already mentioned, but I think it's very important, the

council can dismiss a complaint before any investigation if it is

deemed frivolous, vexatious, in bad faith or more appropriately dealt

with under another act. The council can choose to appoint one of its

members to conduct a hearing or can refer a case to the minister, who

can decide whether or not to appoint a board of inquiry. The power of

the council to conduct its own hearings is new and is not contained in

the existing code or in Bill 27, which we had before. The effect is

that the same agency will sometimes be both the investigator and the

judge of the case. Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate and should be

immediately amended and changed. You cannot be the investigator and the

judge of a case. They need to be separate jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, many groups have asked the government to reconsider

this piece of legislation. I think it would be useful for the minister

and his cabinet colleagues to take up that particular call. There are

still many organizations that are prepared to be very reasonable and to

try to discuss what the intent of this government is. They're not quite

sure why this legislation is as weak as it is. If the accusation is to

accommodate the attitude of the member from Little Mountain — that we

must accommodate the common attitudes that prevail — then we've got

some trouble.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You made a statement, Mr. Member, that you are going to regret seeing in Hansard .

[ Page 4459 ]

Many organizations in British Columbia continue to

express their deep-seated concern that the legislation before us is not

adequate.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Say something!

MR. BLENCOE: What do you want me to say? Do you want me to

say that it's a good piece of legislation? Would that make you feel

better? You could look in the mirror tonight and feel better about it,

Madam Member? Is that what you want? Well, I'm not going to accommodate

your desires at all.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Any respect for them, Mr. Member? They have no time for your bill, and you know it.

MR. MOWAT: Name one.

MR. BLENCOE: I've already named one. How about the B.C. Human Rights Coalition?

MR. REYNOLDS: Solidarity.

MR. BLENCOE: Sure, how about Solidarity? How about the church

organizations — the Catholic church and the United church and those

concerned clergymen? Would 100 people, 200 people, 1,000 organizations

make you change your minds? Is it numbers that are going to tell the

tale of whether human rights in British Columbia are going to be

protected? Is that what it's all about? Is that what this government is

concerned about — how many people believe in human rights? That's where

we're at with this government. It all depends on what the polls are

going to tell them. You're not going to stand up for what happens to be

decent and right and honourable and just, because there may be other

attitudes that do not entirely endorse proper and decent human rights

in the province of British Columbia.

We have a responsibility to stand up even when it's not particularly

popular. We have a responsibility as legislators to say that we believe

in establishing strong human rights. It may not be popular. I believe

this government has not given serious consideration to this piece of

legislation, particularly the elimination of "reasonable cause" and all

that that entails. I think there is need for further consultation and

advice from those who are particularly interested in this legislation.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would urge the government to once again think clearly about its

responsibility not only to British Columbians but also its

responsibility as a democratic institution. In Canada today we have a

Charter of Rights that guarantees every individual equality under the

law — the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination

based on race, national or ethnic origin, or colour. We believe that

the piece of legislation before us opposes and violates some of the

fundamental aspects of that charter.

In the interest of giving this government another opportunity to

reconsider its course of action, another opportunity to take a serious

look at what it's doing, and for each Socred MLA to look at this piece

of legislation and say that in British Columbia we indeed could and

should take the opportunity to write the finest piece of legislation in

North America that we can, because this doesn't do it.... In that

interest, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion: that

the motion for reading of Bill 11, entitled Human Rights Act, be

amended by deleting the words following "that" and adding the words

"six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I think when we're looking at

the motion, and the issue on human rights that is in front of us, I'd

like to use three words: "consider, " "reconsider" and "considerate."

There was once a Greek philosopher who said: "We live now in a sick

society, " and in context with the problems that we associate with

ancient Greece, I doubt if we could really imply that our present day

society is a sick one, even though there are problems in the way we

treat one another, and in the way we are considerate to each other. If

we extend that to some things that were discussed earlier today and

yesterday, in our society we have grown accustomed to we put up with

certain things — for instance, magazines. We've seen some problems in

society with the distribution of magazines which deal with children. We

also hear at times in this Legislature some of the comments that come

across this floor regarding nationality. I'd like to discuss

nationality and some human rights problems that we have in this

province.

I was born in the United States. My grandparents were Canadian, and

I came to Canada when I was young. One of the reasons that I came to

Canada and decided that I wanted to become a Canadian was some of the

problems that I had seen in the community that I grew up in, which was

Detroit. Detroit has had a label on it for years as the murder capital

of the United States. I didn't grow up in the suburbs; to a certain

extent I grew up in the city. In my daily associations in school and

with friends, I had seen the problems of human rights and racism in

Detroit. I remember the one time when I probably made the final

decision — even though I was attending university at the time and had

gone home for the summer. I was coming back from a baseball game — I'd

gone down to see the Tigers — and I saw buildings on fire. It was a

Sunday. It turned out to be the largest race riot in the history of the

United States in Detroit in 1967.

When it came to human rights violations.... It wasn't just what I

had seen on television or heard on the radio; it was something that I

saw first hand, particularly when the 101st Airborne Division were

flown in to Detroit to help quell the race riot that was in progress.

There were more individuals killed in that race riot than in any other

riot in the history of the United States. It had a devastating effect

on me to see citizens, if they were in the armed forces or were just

citizens who lived in the community, going out and killing each other.

I was too young for the Second World War, but I think anybody in this

Legislature who ever experienced serving in the armed forces must know

the feeling when it comes to the loss of human life in a military

situation, and I don't think any of us would ever want to experience

that again for our children or grandchildren, or even for ourselves.

What I saw and experienced in Detroit is something that I hope no one

would ever have to experience first hand.

[ Page 4460 ]

Psychologists who deal in this area often mention a recurring topic

when it comes to human rights violations, and that's fear. It's the

fear of the individual or the fear of something. It's a manifest idea

that is almost like a cancer that grows in individuals, the fear of

something. I think we are all considerate in this Legislature, and if

we look at what fear can do to individuals we will understand that it

is a cancer. Fear probably has caused more human rights violations than

any other thing. Sometimes we allow fear to manifest itself in

ourselves, and we look at individuals and are fearful of skin colour,

disability, or nationality.

When my father came over to North America he had to change his name.

It used to be Passarelli. He had to change it to Passarell — drop off

the "i" — because he found that he could move more freely in employment

opportunities by not being associated as an Italian. Passarell sounds a

little more cosmopolitan or whatever the case is. He had to drop that

"i" because of discrimination he was finding in his own self. He had to

change his name. Why? Because he was Italian? Because he was born in

Italy and immigrated to North America?

I don't think anyone in this Legislature — the opposition or the

government — is going to accuse across this floor or in public

engagements that the Social Credit government is synonymous with human

rights discrimination. I'm not doing it as a personal statement. That's

why I'm taking my place on this floor. I'm not saying that you people

are bad. I think you have a concern and a feeling, and that's why I

talked to you earlier, Mr. Minister of Labour, about those three words,

"consider, " "reconsider" and "considerate" in coming in with this

hoist motion.

As my friend from Victoria mentioned earlier when he was talking

about human rights violations, it's the fear that we see on television

nightly, in whatever part of the world. In Central America,

Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, the Philippines — you can go on and on

and on — we see real human rights violations happening, in which

individuals are taken out and killed, mutilated, put into prisons. I

doubt if that's ever going to happen here in British Columbia. I don't

think it could ever happen. We're not a country, we're a province, and

there are federal laws that protect the individual from that kind of

repressive government. I doubt that this government could be used in

the same kind of synopsis that they're a repressive government such as

Chile or some of the countries in Central America where there are human

rights violations. I think we get lost in that aspect. But it comes

back to that recurring theme of fear again. If as lawmakers we allow

that fear to generate from our debates and from our discussions in this

Legislature, to filter back that there is some kind of fear from this

legislation, then maybe people make the synopsis that it is similar. I

doubt that. I think our role as lawmakers is to stop that type of fear

from filtering out into society through this legislation. That's why

the hoist motion, and that's why I asked if I could speak right after

the hoist motion. I think it's important that we reconsider what we're

doing today.

I've looked at the legislation; I've read it through. There are some

problems with it, and there are some good aspects to it. I don't think anything

is ever 100 percent wrong or right. If it was that way there would be only one

political party in this country or in this province. Why would we need oppositions

or two or three political parties if everything was right or everything was

wrong? I read an

article a few months ago about technological change in the

country, saying that it is possible that politicians could be extinct by the

year 2000 — that computers might just as well do the job that we're doing

today. You could put a computer on this side and you could put a computer on

that side and program it so that whatever that side said or this side said you

would just say the opposite — have a flashing board up there and if that computer

came out and said, "Bill 11 is right, " you would push the button

on this side and it would say: "Opposed." That would cover all the

issues. That's not what we're talking about.

The opposition has brought forward the six-month hoist motion for us

to reconsider exactly how we're moving in this direction of human

rights in this province, to give us time to see if this is the best

piece of legislation that we could be bringing forward as lawmakers in

this province. The aspect that all of us have to grasp, and an aspect

that I grasped by leaving Detroit when I saw the human rights

violations happening in 1967 and prior to that too.... It is to give us

time to reconsider so that fear does not go out into society from here

with our proposed human rights legislation. It's a task that we're all

faced with.

[4:45]

Instead of just giving blanket approval or opposition to what we're

faced with here with this legislation, maybe we should reconsider.

Sometimes in this House we have House committees. Sometimes we just

exchange ideas by standing out in the hallway. Most of the time what

happens is that we exchange ideas across the floor of the Legislature.

Why the opposition is moving this hoist is to allow — I don't think you

ever give without taking something in return — the government six

months to reconsider this legislation.

I talked earlier about my firsthand experiences with human rights

violations in the city of Detroit. My hon. friend from Victoria spoke

of a global discussion. Let's look at human rights violations in this

province. I doubt if you can go anywhere in this province today and be

told, as was my hon. friend, that you are denied access to a restaurant

or a public building because you're disabled. We no longer have that

type of law in our province. I remember that at one time, before I went

bald, I was denied entrance to restaurants and to some public buildings

because of the length of my hair. I think that has been cleaned up a

little bit. I think the perfect example, and the first that we should

be discussing today, when it comes to our province — not what's

happening in Central America or in the Soviet Union, but in our

province — is the first citizens, the native people.

I had the honour of attending the Nishga convention last week in

Kincolith, attended by delegates from the first citizens from across

this country. Kincolith is an interesting place. It's very isolated;

there are no roads into Kincolith. To get to Kincolith, you charter an

aircraft or take a fishing boat from Prince Rupert. Over the four days,

the delegates and the guest speakers who attended the meeting.... We

spent a lot of time just talking. There are only 150 people who live in

Kincolith. There are no hotels or bars. There's just a small store. We

were able to talk a little bit. I had the opportunity, for the first

time ever, to sit down and talk with Frank Calder. We spent two and a

half hours discussing things. Frank represented the Atlin constituency

for 26 years. He was the first native person ever elected in Canada.

In a sense I gained some inner strength from talking with Frank. I

hope not so much inner strength that he wants to run again, but it was

a nice discussion. In our exchange some things came to light when we

were talking about human rights violations in this province. It's

something that Frank himself found when he was first elected in 1949.

It was the

[ Page 4461 ]

first year that native people were allowed to vote. He became an MLA for the Atlin constituency in that year.

While Frank and I were talking.... There were a number of chiefs

from the different nations who were attending the conference who were

talking to us. I was listening to a chief from one of the nations on

Vancouver Island who was talking about how the potlatch was denied to

native people for many years. It was ruled illegal for first nations to

hold a potlatch in their own communities, in their own homes.

Government had imposed itself upon residents of this province by taking

human rights away from them by special laws. We discussed for a long

time the concept of the potlatch — the social as well as the religious

concept, and how it fitted into what we were discussing when we talked

about human rights. It's kind of an odd term, when we look at the

concept of human rights. It's like when we talk about humane traps.

What's more basic than rights for humans? If humans don't have rights,

who does?

We were talking further about some of the problems the first

citizens have had from 1967 to the present. Sweathouses was another

issue that came up, and the religious aspect of how first citizens of

this province were denied sweathouse access. A magazine

article came

out this month.... A prison in Ontario was the first in Canada to allow

native Canadian inmates access to sweathouses for religious purposes.

It was just this year, even though that's been part of the culture for

thousands of years, from time immemorial. Only now are individuals who

are incarcerated for their lifetimes, for instance, given the right of

going to a sweathouse. That's the first time, and that's in a prison in

Ontario. When is it going to happen here in British Columbia, or in the

other eight or nine provinces? I could dwell on the issue of human

rights for native people for many days, probably, but sometimes, as

Mark Twain used to say, it's not how long you talk but what you're

going to say.

I'd like to go to one more issue, an issue that has been recurring

and has gained a lot of popular discussion in the last few months: the

Canadian-Japanese issue, looked at in terms of human rights in this

province. It looks as though the federal government is going to

reconsider some of the things that went on in 1939 and 1941, at the

beginning of the war, some of the associated problems for Canadians in

this province who had a Japanese heritage, and some of the human rights

violations that existed with these Canadian Japanese — individuals who

were born in this country.

I just want to go back to those three words, "consider, "

"reconsider" and "considerate, " and try to apply that. We have brought

forward this hoist motion for six months to allow the government to

reconsider the proposed legislation in front of us, and to be

considerate when we're talking about human rights violations. I think

that the government has the mandate of the people; they've been given

their confidence and their trust. Although we might sit on opposite

sides of the floor, we still share the same feelings when it comes to

the rights of our residents. It could be bad; it could be wrong. I've

looked at the legislation personally; I don't think it's totally bad. I

think the Minister of Labour understands that. By the same token, it's

probably not 100 percent right. Let's allow this hoist motion to

proceed, to reconsider. We say six months hence. It doesn't have to be

six months; it could be a few days. But let's get some exchange going

on. If the exchange across the floor here seems fruitless and there are

no new ideas coming forward, then fine, we should agree unanimously on

the issue. If there are some disagreements across this floor, let's

have the vote on it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Never, never.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, the Minister of Environment speaks from

his chair and says: "Never, never." Maybe it's time that we started

talking that way. It's a shame that....

You seem to be pretty considerate here today, with only nine members in the House — or am I supposed to say 11?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, rightly or wrongly, it's still a shame

that when we're discussing things in this House we have nine or ten

people in this House constantly, and not always the same individuals. I

think all of us can be faulted for the time that we spend in the

Legislature.

Let's reconsider exactly what's in front of us in this human rights

legislation. If it's wrong, let's reconsider it and approve the hoist.

If it's right, and there's no purposeful debate going back and forth,

then let's vote on it for the benefit of the people of this province.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to speak in support of the amendment to

hoist this bill for six months, because I think that something as

important as human rights legislation, which affects everybody — there

really isn't any single person in a nation who is not affected in one

way or another by human rights legislation — shouldn't be amended or

changed or deleted or tampered with in any way without a lot of

research, investigation and consultation as to the impact of the

legislation on various groups in our society. I think that what the six

months will do is give the minister an opportunity to go back and maybe

look at some of the earlier pieces of human rights legislation that we

have in this province.

I'm not participating in this debate as a means of indulging myself

in some kind of academic dissertation or dialogue. When I speak on

human rights, I have a vested interest in it because I belong to two

minority groups — maybe three, if you count the fact that I came to

this country as an immigrant 34 years ago, but definitely at least two

visible minority groups. I have had to live under human rights

legislation for as long as I can remember. Certainly the first

experience I had with human rights legislation in this province had to

do with the original bill which was introduced in 1969. The thing that

bothers me about this particular piece of legislation — Bill 11, which

we are debating today — is that in so many ways this bill is taking us

back to pre-1969. Some of the sections, words and protections which

existed in the 1969 legislation is actually going to be lost when Bill

11 becomes law. I think that the minister.... I don't know whether he

still has a copy of that bill or not. If he doesn't, I would certainly

be happy to let him have my copy of the original bill, as well as the

brochure, Mr. Speaker, which the Social Credit government published at

the time they introduced that original piece of legislation in 1969.

In a lot of ways, the 1969 act influenced the decision made by my

colleague the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — certainly it

influenced me — in terms of our decision to run for elected office. At

the time we were both members of the B.C. Association for the

Advancement of Coloured People. Part of our chores and responsibilities

[ Page 4462 ]

members of that association was to explore the

whole question of discrimination in housing, employment, getting

mortgages and loans, and all the areas of discrimination which

imprisoned people who were black and living in this province at that

time. We came to know that bill very intimately. We knew its

shortcomings. Certainly we knew the kinds of changes that had to be

introduced if that bill was to in any way offer any kind of protection

to women, ethnic and racial minorities, disabled people, senior

citizens, the young and to every other group, including working people,

in this province.

[5:00]

What the original act did was to withhold, for example, protection

in terms of securing rental accommodation or purchasing accommodation.

It deprived women of any protection in that area. There actually did

exist at that time a rule by mortgage companies and the banks by which

they would refuse to give a mortgage to a woman, married or single,

unless that mortgage was co-signed by a male. There were even ludicrous

experiences such as adult women having to have their mortgages or their

loans co-signed by their sons, even though the woman would be the major

wage-earner in that particular family. There even existed the freedom

for landlords to refuse to rent accommodation to single parents if that

single parent was a woman. There were refusals to sell houses to single

women, to married women on their own or to single women who were

parents. There were actually instances in this province where

professional women making incomes higher than many men — I'm thinking

of someone like Pauline Hewett, for example, who had that experience —

not being able to secure a mortgage unless it was co-signed by a male —

any male, as long as that male was over the age of 18. It didn't matter

what kind of job he had. The human rights act of 1969 had absolutely

nothing in it which would prohibit or forbid that kind of

discrimination. Here we are in 1984 with Bill 11 wiping out a

section

that says reasonable cause would have to be given before a refusal

could be exercised. It places women in exactly the same position we

were in in 1969.

The act also did not protect anyone, male or female, from being

fired because the person who employed them did not approve of their

political beliefs. It did not protect women from not being employed in

the role of housekeepers because a prospective employer did not like

the person's race or religion. The act offered almost no protection

whatsoever for anyone who worked for the government, because the

government very carefully indicated that the act would not apply to

them. It didn't apply to the civil service at all.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Discrimination in housing, Mr. Speaker, was not protected against on

grounds of sexual orientation. That's the same thing today. An owner

could refuse to sell his house to a woman because she was divorced and

he didn't approve of divorced women. There was no prohibition against

discrimination, except on commercial premises. In a rooming-house

situation you could discriminate against people because they were

immigrants, because you didn't like the language they spoke, or you

didn't like their race.

Even further than that, the act mirrored this present bill in terms

of its design. All the appointments were being made by the minister

responsible. Of course, having very few rights, because the director

could only deal with things that....

He decided whether something would be referred to the commission or

not and had the right to decide whether a complaint was frivolous or

whether it was non-essential, as the case might be. And there was no

appeal against that decision.

As a direct result of this act which was so inadequate, the member

for Vancouver Centre and I — certainly that has been my experience....

When we were elected in 1972, part of the mandate which we brought into

this Legislature with us was to amend that 1969 Human Rights Code and

to expand the area of its protective powers. And so Bill 100 was

introduced in 1973 — not perfect, not at all adequate. But certainly

what the member for Vancouver Centre and I brought to the drafting of

that legislation was an additional dimension, an additional perspective

through our eyes, as two members of a visible minority group.

In addition, I brought the perspective of a minority group which in

its actual numbers makes up 51 percent of the population at large but

which, on the floor of this Legislature, is never more than 10 percent

— and that is women. They're never more than 10 percent of the

decision-making body which sits on the floor of this House. So often

our agenda and our perception is not taken into account when

legislation is being drafted. Hence the whole concept of discrimination

based on marital status and discrimination based on sex that was

included and expanded under Bill 100.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it was not a perfect piece of

legislation. I tried and I failed, for example, to have the bill

extended to cover farmworkers and domestics, two very important groups

who were not protected by our labour legislation at the time and who

certainly were being vic