1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 783 ]

CONTENTS

Address

Hon. D.J. Evans (Governor of the State of Washington) — 783

Mr. Richter — 785

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 786

Mr. Wallace — 786

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 786

Mr. Speaker — 787

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill 12). Committee

stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 787

Mrs. Jordan — 788

Mr. Wallace — 789

Hon. Mr. Levi — 790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 791

Hon. Mr. Levi — 791

Mrs. Jordan — 791

Hon. Mr. Levi — 792

Mr. McGeer — 793

Report and third reading — 794

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act

(Bill 30).

Committee, report and third reading — 794

Department of Consumer Services Act (Bill 48). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. McGeer — 794

Hon. Ms. Young — 794

Mrs. Jordan — 795

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 795

Mr. Schroeder — 796

Section 5.

Mr. Phillips — 796

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 797

Mrs. Jordan — 797

Hon. Ms. Young — 798

Mr. Phillips — 799

Hon. Ms. Young — 799

Mr. Phillips — 800

Mr. Curtis — 801

Mrs. Jordan — 801

Mr. McGeer — 802

Hon. Ms. Young — 802

Mrs. Jordan — 803

Mr. Phillips — 803

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 804

Mr. Gardom — 804

Mr. Williams — 805

Hon. Ms. Young : — 805

Mr. Phillips — 805

Mrs. Jordan — 806

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 807

The Environment Bill of Rights Act (Bill 79). Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 807

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on this significant occasion I

would ask the leave of the House for the temporary use of the

lights and the cameras to greet the occasion of the visit of

the Governor of the State of Washington.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on this

significant day, which is the second of two that we'll remember

for a long time, it's my singular pleasure and duty to

introduce to the assembly and to you, Sir, the visiting party

from the state to the south of us. On the floor of the House we

have Governor and Mrs. Daniel J. Evans; Hon. August P.

Mardesich, State Senate Majority Leader; Hon. Harry Lewis,

State Senate Minority Leader; and Hon. Leonard A. Sawyer, State

House of Representatives Majority Leader. I ask the House to

welcome them.

Also seated on the floor of the House is the wife of our

Premier, Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

In the Members' gallery, Mr. Speaker, is the official party:

they are Mrs. Mardesich, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Sawyer,

accompanied by Hon. Bert Cole, Commissioner of the Department

of Natural Resources, and Mrs. Cole; Hon. A. Ludlow Kramer,

Secretary of State; Hon. George Andrews, Director of the

Department of Highways, and Mrs. Andrews; Mr. John Biggs,

Director of the Department of Ecology, whose name has

frequently been mentioned on the floor of this House — Mr.

Biggs and Mrs. Biggs; Mr. Peter Delaney, press secretary; Mr.

James Dolliver, Governor Evans' staff, and Mrs. Dolliver; Mr.

Jay Fredericksen, Governor Evans' staff; Mr. Jacobs, who is

the Director of the Department of Labour and Industries, and

Mrs. Jacobs; Col. William Lathrop of Governor Evans' staff; and

Mr. Thor C. Tollefson, Director of the Department of Fisheries,

and Mrs. Tollefson. I ask the House to welcome the official

party.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I ask leave of the House to allow

the Hon. Dan Evans, Governor of the State of Washington, the

opportunity to speak to your Legislative Assembly Members.

Leave granted.

HON. D.J. EVANS (Governor of the State of Washington): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, Members of this legislative body, my own delegation

from the State of Washington and citizens of both our two

great nations:

This is one of the rare privileges and honours I've had in

the almost nine years I've been Governor of our State of

Washington, to be invited to speak to this Legislative

Assembly. I recognize that it is indeed a rare privilege and I

know very well from my long experience as a Member of our own

House of Representatives, prior to becoming Governor, how

jealously those in the legislative branch guard the privileges

and the responsibilities they share. In fact yesterday when we

had the opportunity I enjoyed, as a former Member, the chance

to see some of the differences in the way you do things

compared with our own state.

The question period, which I understand is a rather new

innovation here, was an interesting, in fact, an extremely

interesting opportunity. I must say while I enjoyed it as a

former Member, I'm not so sure I had equal enjoyment as a

Governor because shortly after that visit yesterday I was

approached by some of our Members of the Legislature, the

legislative leadership, suggesting that that would indeed be a

good idea to transport south of the border. (Laughter.)

However, our differences may make it a more difficult than

normal thing to do because while the government here can

respond to questions knowing they have the comfort of a

majority always, I don't share that same opportunity. Entering

my legislative chambers would be akin to a true modern Daniel

in the lions' den.

But while we all have enjoyed this interchange and the

opportunity to see this legislative body in action — and I know

the same opportunity extended last year on the visit of the

Premier and his cabinet to Olympia — I think we sometimes do

forget, and our people unfortunately forget, just how hard our

ancestors fought for this very privilege — this very privilege

of free debate and popular rule. In fact I suspect today with

the cynicism of people toward those in political life and those

who represent them in government they have forgotten the great

predecessors we had that gave us the privilege, the stability

and the continuity of free government here in this nation and

in our own.

In fact governments rise and fall around us all over this

world — just in recent weeks we have seen one government fall

in Chile and the institution of a government not quite as free,

perhaps not quite as liberal in its approach. At the same time

a few weeks later, the government in Thailand fell, but fell

perhaps the other way — from a military leadership to what

appears to be an opportunity for a more constitutional approach

led interestingly enough by the students and the young of that

nation.

[ Page 784 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. EVANS: But governments do fall, all over the world.

And as each one falls we should be that much more assured at

the wealth of background and the experience we have enjoyed in

these two nations, the stability and the continuity of the

governments and the representative democracy process we all

enjoy.

This visit is and has been an exceptional one. Your

hospitality has been first rate — in fact, in talking to some

of my colleagues this morning, almost too first rate. And I

don't think that all of them ended their opportunities to

experience Victoria with the official events of last night.

I think really this, in many respects, is very much like

some of the birthday parties I have seen in our home where our

youngsters bring in half a dozen or more of their friends. They

are all on their best behaviour; they are all dressed up — at

least at the beginning. But that is shortly followed usually by

a football game on the front lawn, a much more informal

exchange which sometimes leads to a little bloodshed, from time

to time, but almost invariably ends up with better friendships

cemented a little more directly. I hope as we look ahead we

will look ahead, not to so many more official birthday parties

with everyone on their best behaviour, but rather the football

games on the front lawn, the informal exchange which can be of

so much benefit, I think, to those of us on both sides of this

border.

Yesterday we shared some of our unique opportunities and

resources in informal discussions held between you and some of

our representatives from the State of Washington. I think it

becomes pretty obvious in our state the very careful difference

that we draw between our Washington and the other Washington.

The distinction between the west, or the northwest of our

country, and the middle west and the east is a distinction

shared up here as well.

The political, the financial, the business strength of our

two nations is concentrated on the eastern seaboard, or at

least in the eastern half of our two countries.

Here in the west we are rich in natural resources and I

think also rich in human resources; a free spirit, a different

spirit perhaps from that which exists today in the eastern

halves of our two nations; a determination, a fierce

determination, to protect our own land and the physical

environment around us.

I suspect that the best word which could be applied to a westerner today is

that of an environmentalist. Because I think we are all environmentalists, must

be environmentalists if we are to protect the great natural resources we have

been blessed with and still allow the continued growth of our human resources

as years go on. I think we all share the feeling that growth for growth's sake

is no longer a slogan nor a goal to be sought.

I know, while we have these frustrations south of the

border, that you have equal frustrations of the same, or

perhaps somewhat different kinds, up here. I suggest, in

sharing these same concerns, that we turn to an increasing

degree north and south for their resolutions. While federal

governments of the two nations have major responsibilities and,

in fact, in the cases of some of our large problems, have

essentially sole responsibility through treaties and through

international agreements, nonetheless, I believe we would all

agree that too often those of us who live in this part of our

two nations have far too little input into those national or

international agreements made.

The unique natural resources we have, the national interests

of the two nations are involved, unquestionably; but the

results affect those of us who live here to a far greater

extent than they affect those who live in the other parts of

our two countries.

We have a long agenda of joint concerns which have led in

past years to conflict at times and, in most cases today,

represent unresolved problems. I suspect the best question then

before us is whether these unresolved problems become

unresolvable or whether, through a much greater interchange on

informal as well as formal basis, we do work toward the

resolution of these concerns.

I need not list all of them, but some which are of current

interest regard our great oceanographic resources, particularly

the fisheries resources of our two nations and this particular

area of a great ocean. We share joint concerns, I think, at the

invasion of foreign fisheries fleets from an increasing number

of nations, utilizing the resources which are close to our own

borders and resources which, in many cases, have been initiated

and developed through the efforts of people of our two

areas.

The great question of basic energy resources, particularly

those of natural gas and oil, remains and perhaps increases as

a problem we all must face. The tragedy of the Middle East is

likely to have fallout that will go far beyond that area of the

world and will impinge on the future of each of us in this

particular area of responsibility. Of course unquestionably the

difficulty we face in those natural resources will affect the

development of our oil resources in Alaska and the shipment of

those oil resources, which I know of are such enormous concern

to the citizens of British Columbia.

I was delighted yesterday to hear the first question in the

question period as it related to Point Roberts. I must say that

I probably shared with the Member of the opposition a concern

over a not very specific answer from the government.

(Laughter.) But it is a real and a growing problem and one

which deserves the best of each of us if the people who live

there, the people who own property there, are to have some

security as to their own future. The great

[ Page 785 ]

opportunities for tourism and recreation affect us all. I

have mentioned, but need mention again, the enormous and

interrelated problems of energy, its use and its conservation.

Perhaps that word conservation is one we must all keep in mind.

I have mentioned that we, as westerners, should consider

ourselves as environmentalists. If that is true, as I believe

it is, then also should we consider this age we are now

entering upon as an age of conservation, an age of conservation

which simply must replace an era of waste which we were taught

over the last 25 to 30 years or more — taught to waste because

we believed that our natural resources were inexhaustible and

cheap and that we had no worry over their replacement.

Suddenly and obviously we have found that that is not true.

Thus, not for a short period, not to meet an immediate crisis,

but for all time to come we simply have to consider ourselves

in an age of conservation if we are to retain and expand our

own human condition in the remainder of this century.

I have had an opportunity to speak to the Premier, at least

briefly, about some of these problems, both in his visit to

Olympia and in my visit here. Obviously, in their resolution,

we must consider our own interests. But I suggest that each of

our interests, very likely, depends on our willingness and our

ability to join together for their resolution.

I suggest then, in the spirit of that football game I

mentioned earlier, that we meet on a more regular, and perhaps

a more informal basis, to give an opportunity for counterparts

on each side of the border to discuss issues before they become

crises, to investigate ways in which we might resolve our joint

problems before they become contests between us, to meet in an

effort to discover those areas we might explore which can be of

mutual interest to both of us and to share the unique and

innovative ideas each government has suggested and developed

for its own people.

I was struck a few years ago, in flying across the border,

to see for the first time the physical border which does

separate us. Perhaps not all of you have seen that physical

border, but in flying above it in an airplane you do see that

long, straight line with some clearing on both sides. It's

visible; it's apparent; it's unprotected.

We have long been proud of the longest unprotected border

dividing two nations anywhere on the face of this earth. But I

don't believe that term "unprotected border" takes full meaning

unless there is also a maximum exchange, a free exchange across

that unprotected border.

If I am the first Governor of my state, or at least the first in the past half-century,

to have the privilege to address you, I hope many will follow. I hope that we

can prove, over the years to come, that this area of the world can plan its

own growth wisely and well, that we can use our natural resources properly for

not only our benefit, but for the benefit of those who follow us — and, most

of all, to provide a human environment, a unique human environment, one which

we will all be proud to pass along to our descendants.

Thank you so much for this privilege of addressing you.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

having the Hon. Dan Evans, Governor of the State of Washington

immediately to our south, his distinguished colleagues and the

retinue of people who have come with him is an occasion rather

unique in the history of the British parliamentary system,

where we have always guarded very jealously the fact that you

were an elected Member before you could speak in the

Legislative Assembly.

I welcome this occasion, particularly on behalf of my

colleagues here in the official opposition, in that we are

seeing a new era emerge, and by this emergence of this new era

we are able to bring about a closer liaison, an exchange of

ideas and the opportunity to see the problems of those who are

immediately surrounding us or adjoining us. This factor is

probably something that we should have probably entered into

much sooner. We would probably have had greater peace in the

world today had this occurred.

It is a peculiar thing: we are all made alike as humans, but

the reason we have these varying differences is completely, I

feel, a matter of lack of liaison, a lack of understanding of

our neighbours' problems, conditions and so on.

My forefathers — if I can say forefathers — my mother and

father both came from the United States. I have many relatives

in the United States. This great unarmed border that we have

has been something of a mystery to me when I look around the

other parts of the world, especially when I cross an

international border — the simplicity we have in moving back

and forth. The understanding that we have of each other has

always been something in my mind that I have guarded jealously.

I think this is a terrific example to the rest of the world. I

would hope that it would continue that way.

An item that was mentioned yesterday by our Premier and also

by Governor Evans was the matter of the Pig War. One would

never have thought that there had been any real differences

between the State of Washington and British Columbia. But

actually I have rather a close kinship in relation to the Pig

War in that it was General Harney of the U.S. Army who was the

mediator of that war.

It was my father, who was his Indian scout, that actually

made it possible for the West to be settled. I don't say that

it was my father that settled it, or anything of that nature,

but he was one of the

[ Page 786 ]

participants, and I am very proud of the fact that he was

able to participate in bringing about the development of the

western United States. My father eventually migrated into

British Columbia in 1964 as a fur trader.

Now the part that I feel very close about is that my father

was a silver miner in New Mexico and Arizona, and he presented

a pair of silver spurs to General Harney. I have a duplicate

pair in my possession. It doesn't seem that long ago, but it

was some considerable time ago.

Fortunately we have had no conflicts since the pig died and

was put away and everybody was happy. You know, if all wars

could be settled that simply, it would be a wonderful world to

live in. However, we do have more serious conflicts.

I think because of today's occasion with Governor Evans and

his group being with us we can really appreciate a closer

kinship, a better understanding and the entering into a new era

of relations, liaison and so on between the Province of British

Columbia and the State of Washington.

Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

join with the previous speaker and associate the Liberal Party

with the words of the Hon. Governor Evans.

He has been described as a Liberal-Republican, the only

political description given, so perhaps there's some affinity

to him.

I would like to thank him very much for pointing out that

governments do fall. (Laughter.) We took considerable

encouragement from his words on this side of the House and we

would like to congratulate him, Mr. Speaker, on the speed of

his mind. He was in this Legislature for just a few moments,

the first question was asked and he realized, of course, the

defect of the question period at once. We, too, shared his

disappointment at the answer and will point out that some

things, which seem good in theory, in practice are not always

perfect.

We would like to again thank him and also for his remarks,

having been a former legislator, about the jealously-guarded

privileges of the Legislature. Perhaps because of the nature of

the British parliamentary system, we in opposition and the

government when it was in opposition, take this role very

seriously. I can assure him that we do.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned his history in

connection with the Americans going back many years. There's a

family story of ours that my great-grand father was either a

draft-dodger or a deserter — I'm not sure which — from the

American forces during the Civil War and, therefore, is one of

the first of a long line of people who have come to Canada for

political reasons from the United States.

I would like to say that we welcome the political visit of the Hon. Governor,

we thank him for coming and we would just like to remind him that, while we

do have differences, we have not entirely forgotten the Pig War, we have not

entirely forgotten the Alaska Panhandle and that one day, we trust the San Juan

Islands and the Panhandle will revert to Canadian sovereignty.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Speaking after the two

opposition party leaders, as a Scotsman, I am going to have a

terrible job identifying my heritage with America. (Laughter.)

Really, I think that the events of the Governor's visit

demonstrate very clearly the shrinking nature of the world and,

of course, the overriding importance to peoples of different

parts of the world and different parts of this continent of

exchanging ideas.

The Governor also, I think, typifies the younger, vigorous

type of leader who is emerging in the modern political world.

My first recollection of the Governor was to see a picture of

the Governor rapelling down the side of the clock tower at

Evergreen College. It seemed to me that this was an unusual

thing for a leader to do, but on the other hand it seemed to me

to typify some of the characteristics of the appropriate leader — a mixture of courage and a certain amount of flamboyance.

I think that in the modern world it is so important that we

don't become overanxious about the many problems, such as the

Governor outlined in his speech, and always preserve a sense of

humour to try to keep people from becoming too obsessed with

the many serious problems of the world.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting also, on the

occasion of the Governor's visit, to make sure he realizes that

the hospitality extended at Government House last night…while, as always, the food was delightful, the entertainment

was a little different from usual. I think we should all

recognize what might best be called the stand-up performance by

His Honour himself.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this party is very

happy to see the stronger bonds being developed between the

State of Washington and British Columbia. We hope this is

setting an example for other states bordering Canadian

provinces and, indeed, with the tremendous strife in other

parts of the world, we hope that this is setting a good example

for all of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to

thank the official Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the

Liberal Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party for

their very gracious remarks to our guest. Although the leader

of the Conservative Party says that he has no personal links to

the Americans, let me point out that many

[ Page 787 ]

Americans, as I understand it, are very familiar with the

products of your home country. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Long may it continue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this

is a unique and very unusual experience in our House to have a

guest be permitted to speak. I feel just as strongly as the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter) about the privilege of

speaking in this House, and because of that, I can't think of a

more appropriate person to be the first in my memory to have

the opportunity of speaking, by leave, to this House.

Governor Evans has pointed out the problems that have

existed, now do exist and will exist in the future. Some of

them, as he has said, we will not be able to resolve, but

nonetheless, even at that point we have never resorted to

physical violence between two sovereign nations represented by

the State of Washington and the Province of British

Columbia.

Governor Evans, as a human being, represents a dimension of

political life that is a reflection of a hope of the people in

this region. We all feel a great sense of love for the physical

beauties of our respective areas. Because of that uniqueness

and that sense of love we have we do feel, in common with the

Governor, sometimes that our federal jurisdictions don't

completely understand us, but perhaps that will change too.

I welcome the Governor's initiative in suggesting more

contacts with the State of Washington, and I look forward to

initiating that.

As a memento of the Governor's visit to British Columbia,

I'd like to present to him one of the limited editions of a

book The Wildflowers of British Columbia by Lewis J. Clark.

This book has a beautiful collection of photographs, in a

limited edition, of the flowers of the Province of British

Columbia, many of which are found in the State of Washington

and are unique to our region. Perhaps more than anything else,

this book will symbolize the real lack of a border by nature in

our two jurisdictions.

HON. MR. EVANS: Mr. Premier, if I may be permitted one final

word, I'm gratified. My wife and I and my family, I hope, will

be given leave by the government, by this House and by the

people of British Columbia to on occasion come north of the

border, tramp your highlands and your mountains to seek out

some of these wildflowers. I agree with the Premier, it

represents in a very real sense the nature which joins us, in

spite of the boundary which may divide us.

Let me also thank each of the Members of the opposition for their kind words.

I was delighted to hear of the family relationships which bind us. I'm delighted

to hear your kind words and hope that there will be many opportunities for us

to join together in the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, also in behalf of the Members

of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia, we have

a small gift to Mrs. Evans.

MR. SPEAKER: And while we're in a giving mood, on behalf of

the Legislative Assembly, as Speaker, I would like to present

an argillite statue from the Queen Charlotte Islands carved by

a native carver near Massett — I think a nice specimen of that

unique work — to Mrs. Evans on behalf of the Legislature.

On behalf of the Legislature again, because we have a

Speaker on the floor of the House, the Hon. Leonard Sawyer,

House of Representatives Majority Leader — I wonder if you'd

come forward — I'd like to give him an old-fashioned artifact

carved by a Haida Indian, which was, I understand, called a

gavel. They used to use them before cut-out buttons.

(Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, at the second

reading of this bill, the Minister made a very wide-ranging

statement followed up by another wide-ranging statement from

the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — I might add a very

interesting statement she made until eventually cut off by the

Chair.

A number of issues were raised which go beyond the immediate

scope of

section 1, but in the light of the debate that we had

on second reading, which was of great concern to large numbers

of people, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to

question the Minister a little on

section 1.

The first point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Minister indicated he will be permitting the parents who have

allowed children to go out for adoption to find their children.

In other words, to

[ Page 788 ]

come again in contact with their children, which is a

principle that up to now has been very, very jealously guarded

because of the traumatic, psychological problems that can arise

due to conflicts of interest when a child, having been adopted,

at an age of anywhere from 12 to 21, is suddenly reminded of

the fact that it is not the true child of the parents whom up

to that point the child may have always considered to be his

own parents.

The difficulties that have arisen in this in the past led to

virtually an embargo on that type of information passing back

and forth.

The Minister indicated and he gave some examples…. I must

say I really do appreciate the Minister's frank and very open

discussion of this at that time because this, for certain

individual families, is a matter of absolutely critical

importance.

I must say I received some frantic telephone calls,

following the report of the Minister's statement in the press,

from people who have adopted children, who happen to know who

the actual parents of the child are, and who are absolutely

deathly afraid of having the family life they've been able to

create around the adopted child simply blown apart, totally

destroyed by the problems that could arise if the child itself

became aware of the fact that it was adopted, or the child

itself became aware of who its true parents might be.

I beg your indulgence on this

section because we are really

going back, I guess, to discussion that the Minister raised at

that time. The difficulty for some of these people is a matter

of constant day and night worry. It has been ever since the

Minister made his original statements. They simply don't know

what the government's intentions in this regard are. They

understood there were legal barriers to inquiries by the true

parents, particularly in the case of the mother, to find out

and then identify herself to the child concerned.

We realize, we know full well, why this bill came in. It was

a decision — in my view, if I can criticize the bench, an

erroneous decision by Judge Tyrwhitt-Drake.

We know the difficulties that the Minister is faced with,

but I would ask him to comment at some length in a fairly

general sense to set at rest the concern of these parents. I

know the Attorney General is looking worried, and perhaps it

should have originally been him getting up to comment during

second reading to set at rest the concerns that were raised in

the second reading debate. I trust that the Minister will in

turn do that.

The second point I would like the Minister to comment on, and comment on again,

in a fairly definitive fashion if he can, is the status of the adoptions. I

believe there are some 65 which are in limbo as a result of the statement made

earlier in second reading and the concern that arose immediately after.

I refer you to the comments of Indian leaders. I believe

Chief Phillip Paul, a former constituent of mine, raised some

very interesting points which the Minister might well like to

comment upon — when you have what are essentially the

cross-racial adoptions; in other words, adoptions by white

couples or couples of asiatic descent of native Indian

children. I should in addition add couples of black descent as

well; in other words, non-Indians adopting Indian kids.

This has happened in many instances very successfully; I can

think, without naming names, of one Member of this Legislature

who certainly is to be commended for adopting a child of

another racial extraction and has done a splendid job in

bringing that child up.

The fact is that all such adoptions are now, I believe, in

limbo, and, as there apparently is not the source of Indian

parents willing to adopt, I wonder whether the Minister would

comment on how he intends to get around this problem. It is, I

realize, a critical problem. If there are not the Indian

parents available for adopting these kids, then obviously the

Minister and his bureaucrats must look elsewhere.

I would think that it would be worse — and I asked him for

his professional advice as a former social worker as well as

his advice as Minister — to keep these children in institutions

rather than adopt them out, even if it means adopting across

racial lines.

Now, these are wide-ranging questions. I would appreciate,

Mr. Chairman, your indulgence and kindness in allowing these

points to be raised. But can these people, who do not know who

their children's parents might be and have this tremendous

concern as to whether or not the true parentage will be

exposed, whether or not there will be the psychological

difficulties that the family will face as a result of exposure,

can they have their fears set at rest?

In addition, I wonder on the second point, directly on

Indian adoptions, whether he would indicate the present policy

of his department, or, if there's some legal bar somewhere or

some study underway, when we can expect the backlog to be dealt

with and when we can expect a regular system of adoptions of

Indian children.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to speak on

behalf of our party to

section 1 of this bill, and not repeat

but endorse the concerns that have been made by the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) in relation to

interracial adoptions and the concern of now-adopted parents as

to the future within that family unit in light of what the

Minister has said he may well allow.

I would like to ask the Minister — because I've not been

present and not had an opportunity to ask him before he went to

third reading on this bill — whether

[ Page

789 ]

he has given any serious thought to what I understand is a

serious reaction on the part of the native Indian people in

British Columbia to this bill. My understanding is that some of

them have not yet received a copy of the bill, others only just

received a copy, and they're deeply concerned about not only

the points that have been made this morning and points that

were made in second reading but whether, in fact, there aren't

hidden ramifications. In using the term "hidden" I don't mean

to imply intentional hiding.

The government has displayed in other areas actions which

have had, unknown to them, very long term, far-reaching

ramifications, potentially destructive to the native Indian

rights in British Columbia, as the efforts that they were

trying to work, the government itself, in British Columbia

affected the status of the Indians under the BNA Act.

I would ask the Minister to think about this very, very

seriously, through you, Mr. Chairman, because I feel confident

that he wouldn't want to enact

an Act in this Legislature which

did, in fact, undermine the rights of some of the native

Indians, unbeknown to himself or to this Legislature.

One of the concerns that the native people have expressed is

their long standing fear that they do not want to be integrated

within any other race or society, either intentionally or

subtly. I believe we are all aware that there has been an

intent, in part, on the part of the federal government to

subtly integrate the native Indian people in Canada. I think

many of us are opposed to this approach. I think that their

fear of subtle integration possibly through this Act in one

aspect is grounded. I would ask the Minister to comment on

this.

I asked the Minister, in second reading of the bill, what

effect this Act would have in terms of legality and also in

terms of human effects, if an Indian lady chose to adopt a

white man to give social livability to the relationship, to

give a legal name to the children of that relationship, and, in

fact, to preserve her rights as a native Indian.

I asked again for the Minister to comment on this because,

while he smiles — and I should certainly smile when I think

about it myself — my understanding is that this is a

possibility that could take place. I think it is very important

before we pass this bill to know if it could happen. Would it

be legal; what would be the status of the children of that

relationship — they obviously would be of mixed blood; would

they have native Indian rights; what would be their status in

the rest of society; could this be a subtle form of integration

which the Indians themselves would oppose? And again, when I

say a subtle form, I'm not accusing the Minister of this

intention at all.

I really feel, Mr. Chairman — although I have not prepared a

motion to this effect — that unless the

Minister can give us very clear-cut answers to the concerns

that have been expressed by the few native people who have read

the bill and to some of the questions that have been posed by

them and by the Members of this Legislature, because of the

extreme danger there is in trying to do a good deed but, in

fact, undermining the rights of the native people of British

Columbia in relation to the federal Act, that he give this

matter further study. As I say, I'm not making a proposal

because I would like to hear his answers. But if he, can't

answer these questions positively, to the point where he's

willing to stand 10 years from now in relationship and answer

for any consequences of this Act, he should withhold the bill,

study the questions and the legalities, discuss it further with

the native Indian people, and reintroduce it at the next

session. I invite his comments to these questions.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll be brief and seek your

indulgence for just a few moments to express the feeling of our

party on this issue, which isn't entirely to the point in

regard to

section 1 of the bill. Nevertheless, both as a

physician and as a politician, I feel that the suggestion that

efforts should be made to bring together the natural parents

and the adopted children is fraught with tremendous danger.

I have also had calls and one particular letter, which the

Minister has received, so I needn't go into all the details. I

think the writer of that letter, Mr. Thornton, spells out very

well some of the very real potential dangers which exist if one

should encourage adopted children…. Again, I'm a little out

of order, but it doesn't just apply to whether they're Indian

children or white children or any other kind of children; it is

the principle of emotional stress and strain which attaches

both to the adopted child and to the mother and father who gave

up that child some time ago.

The adopting parents also, I think, are entitled to consider

that, when they adopted the child not too many years ago, part

of the policy of social services was not to identify the child

with the natural parent or to have the parent have access to

the child. Now it would appear that that policy is probably

about to be changed with very great concern to the adopting

parents.

This letter that I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, also makes a

very good point. Although the lady whom the Minister quoted in

his speech talked of four adults who were enriched by having

contact with their biological parents, there was no balancing

statement as to how many adults or children had been disturbed

by having been put in contact with their natural parents. It

just seems to me, when one tries to be very human and objective

about this suggestion in this very important matter, that

there

[ Page 790 ]

must be a tremendous conflict in the minds of both the

natural parent and the adopted child if they're brought

together again either in their childhood or teen-age years.

It is a tremendously difficult problem, and no one has the

correct answer I'm sure, but I think it is the responsibility

of government and this House at least to be able to put on

record the concern and the anxiety of people who have adopted

children under a certain series of guidelines, one of which was

to establish confidentiality in regard to the parents of the

adopted child to prevent them coming together at a later date.

To change such guidelines, the emotional and social and legal

possibilities which might mushroom from that meeting are very

considerable.

I'm sure that the Minister, Mr. Chairman, is in no way

seeking to experiment in this field. He simply, I think, was

putting forward an idea which perhaps others had suggested to

him. But if we take into serious account the kind of sentiments

expressed by Mr. Thornton, who apparently discussed the matter

with many of his close friends and acquaintances who also have

adopted children, he says that with only two exceptions they

were all greatly alarmed and would eagerly wish to hear the

Minister's thoughts after he has reconsidered this.

I think that the Minister can now enlarge on his proposals,

or if he's perhaps decided that this idea is premature and

requires some more study, I think he will be putting many minds

at rest in the province — the minds of people who have adopted

children.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I

want to be very careful in what I say because I'm aware that

some people are very anxious about their reading of the

statements that I made on second reading.

First of all, what I presented was an idea; I did not

present and did not represent it as being something that was

about to become policy. I said that we'd had a number of

representations. I also referred to the fact that we were not

dealing with young children; we were talking about the older

children past 19 years of age.

However, to certainly set at ease the parents who've had

some anxiety: this is not about to become policy at all. There

will be a wide-ranging discussion about it, probably going on

for a couple of years. Nevertheless, we've had some people who

have asked us, but this in no way applies to young children and

it would in no way apply to anyone who did not want to be

involved in it. We are not going to impose anything on

anyone.

As I said in the second reading: I, as a social worker over

the years, had literally dozens of young people come to me

looking for their natural parents. One cannot just say to young

people in their 20s, "Well, I can't help you; there's nothing I

can do."

The search goes on anyway.

But again let me reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that this is not

policy and it is not about to become policy. It is a question

of discussion. We are having, as I announced before, a royal

commission on family law, and presumably this kind of thing

will be before that commission — at least, I hope it would be

before it.

But certainly to allay any fears that any of the parents

have who have adopted: this is not a policy and it is not about

to become policy. It is something which I think has to be

discussed, though. I can assure everyone that it's not going to

be policy and there will be a great deal of discussion with a

lot of people before we make any decisions on this.

Now I hope that I've been able to assure the Members and the

family out there of this. When I introduced the bill at second

reading I said that we were looking at a number of areas in

terms of adoption.

I want now to turn to the questions by the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We met with Phillip Paul recently

in my office to discuss their concerns about the bill in

relation to the Indian people. The situation now is — and I'm

advised by our legal people — that no adoptions can go forward.

There are, in fact, 65 cases that are in limbo. I have said — and this apparently will take several months to resolve this

matter of the judgment of Mr. Tyrwhitt-Drake and the appeal — that we have stopped accepting applications for adoption of

Indian children. All of those that are in the works are also in

limbo.

Now I said also in second reading that we are concerned

about the number of Indian children that are being adopted into

white families because many Indian families that might want to

be able to adopt children under their extended-family system

that they have on the reserves are not able to do this because

they have not the money to support the children.

I talked about the idea of subsidized adoption. We are

looking into this question; this is one of the other points

that I raised. This is not a new discussion that we've had with

the Indians about subsidized adoptions and their concern with

the adoption of Indian children into white families. They

express it in a very dramatic fashion; they see it as ethnic

genocide — a dissolving of their culture.

We have to listen to them, and we certainly did listen to

them the other day when they came in. They were accompanied by

their lawyer from Ottawa, Mr. Doug Sanders, who at the moment

is completing a study for the federal Law Reform Commission on

the question of status of Indians. That report apparently will

not be finished for some time. He will make available to us his

services once there is a report done. But in terms of this bill

here, we are advised that we need to state that our Act does

not in fact take away,

[ Page 791 ]

nor is it intended to take away, any of the rights of Indian

children.

Again, I would think that this kind of discussion about the

rights of Indian children in relation to our Adoption Act will

become subject of discussion for the royal commission. There'll

be further discussion of it. It's not our intention to withdraw

the bill. We feel that it meets a requirement — after some very

serious legal advice from our department that we should go

ahead with it. We have to deal with the results of the appeal

with respect to Mr. Tyrwhitt-Drake's decision. It underlines

our feeling that in no way does our Act take away the rights of

Indian children when they're adopted.

Now in respect to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan's (Mrs.

Jordan'

s) question regarding the question of an adult, I'm

afraid that we have not pursued this further. But if she will

take my assurance that I will, then I will communicate with her

about this. I did not seek legal advice on it, but I'm

certainly quite prepared to seek advice on it.

Because we will meet again in the spring, if we find then

that there's a requirement to make a further amendment or to

modify whatever we've done, we certainly will do it. But the

best advice we have is that this amendment is necessary if

we're going to ensure people that these rights are, in fact,

inviolate. However, the outcome of the report on the status of

Indians from the federal royal commission perhaps could change

this too. We may get into some areas which are completely out

of my ken — and that is in relation to the constitutional

matters.

It's only recently that there's been any very serious work,

as I understand, in this particular area of status. I'm

certainly very happy that it is going on and that I did have an

opportunity to talk to Mr. Sanders who is the lawyer who is

doing this particular thing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the

Minister for his remarks. It does, to a certain degree, relieve

some of our anxiety. I'm taking from his remarks that there's

no way that children under the age of 21 could be informed of

their true parents unless, of course, the adopted parents also

agree that this should take place. I see him nodding his head;

I thank him very much.

On the strict question of children of Indian descent being

adopted, whomever by, may I ask the Minister whether there are

subsequent discussions that he is going to have with people

such as Phillip Paul or the council on questions relating to

this matter, or is he waiting for the royal commission report

and then are we going to go through after that with another

amendment?

What I would like to know is that…. Phillip Paul made perfectly clear that

the child sometime is adopted now and he is adopted into a family; he is not

informed of the fact he has Indian rights as a treaty Indian — the distinction

of course between the treaty and the non-status Indian is extremely important

in a legal sense — he loses later on in his life these rights because he was

never informed that he had them in the first place, and they somehow or other

get eroded. This was one of the basic concerns of Mr. Paul.

I wonder whether the Minister would comment directly on his

continuing negotiations with Indians in the near future while

these reports and royal commissions are reporting and also

whether or not some provision has been worked out at age 21 for

informing the child of Indian descent, who may well be over 50

per cent of white blood or other racial extraction, but who is

nevertheless a treaty Indian.

Perhaps you would like to comment on that at this time.

HON. MR. LEVI: As the Hon. Member may know, in the paper

that he presented to us he recommended some procedures that we

could follow under the Superintendent of Child Welfare about

notification to the Registrar-General within the Indian Affairs

department about children and adoptions. He suggested that

there be a requirement that the Superintendent of Child Welfare

advise the adopting parents of the child's band and the child's

rights within that band. We are now reviewing some policy on

this that we would like to submit to the Attorney General's

department for consideration.

There will be some continuing meetings because we have

already met, as a matter of fact, two days ago with Mrs. Rose

Charlie who is with the Indian Homemakers Association and who

is also very concerned about this. We want to have some

discussion with them about the subsidized adoption

question.

We have an agreement with Mr. Paul that we will be meeting

on a continual basis. Once we have worked out a statement that

we want to submit to the Attorney General, we will contact Mr.

Paul to have them look at it before we submit it to see whether

they can meet some of the requirements he has suggested. I

think some of the suggestions he has in there are quite

interesting.

Within the brief itself, I think — and this of course is a

federal question — the differentiation between procedures

between provinces is really quite remarkable considering that

it is a federal Act. We are quite prepared to introduce

procedures, subject to the approval of our legal people, that

will in any way even more so ensure the rights of the children.

We will be having discussions with Mr. Paul on this as soon as

we have worked out a position for the statement.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept the Minister's statements

[ Page 792 ]

then and his assurances regarding this bill. I still

question the advisability of pursuing it, partially from your

own statement.

You mentioned that you heard from Mrs. Charlie just two days

ago, and you heard from Mr. Paul. One of the things that I wish

to repeat to you is that I think one of the problems is that

this bill, and the ramifications of it, have not been fully

studied by the majority of the Indian people in British

Columbia. It's just a few chiefs who have spoken out because it

came to their attention.

I recognize your concern in trying to expedite those

adoptions that are in limbo, but sometimes it is not always

wise to cut off the head because the body drops dead, even

though it may look better or go into the box better. I think

you must move extremely cautiously on this.

One of the bad things that has happened in the past is the

utilization of the Indian as a political tool. None of us wants

to see this and I know the Minister doesn't.

I think that we have to recognize, perhaps even more than

with many other groups of people, that time unfortunately is

important and that in anything that is done that affects the

native Indian people in our province there should be ample time

for the majority — and I mean the majority, right to their

grass roots — to know what it is that is happening, why it has

been brought about and what the results are going to be. I

think in something like this bill it is extremely important

because it does have long-term ramifications and does raise a

lot of questions.

Perhaps the Minister can answer those questions and give us

the assurance we want. It is the confidence of the people and

the Indian people themselves that you have to be striving for,

even more than our confidence.

The Minister threw out a thought as to whether it would be

wise to allow natural parents to meet with the adopted child.

You say that you had requests for this and you are now

back-pedalling a bit and saying it was just a thought, that you

feel there should be discussion.

I would like to know the basis for your reasoning that there

should be discussion.

It is well of you to give assurance today to the media, to

those parents who have adopted native children under

guidelines, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has said,

that were clearly understood and that this should allay their

concern. But I assure you, Mr. Minister, it isn't going to

allay their concern.

The ball is in the fire now. Why was it put in the fire? Who

are the people who asked you to consider this question? If you

have correspondence, will you file it with the House so that we

know whether in fact this is a concern that's been expressed

and an idea that has been expressed by adopting parents? Or is

it a super-liberal idea that somebody dreamed up?

To discuss it for two years, saying that it may or may not

be policy, without giving these parents and these people,

particularly, a sound reason for why you threw it out, I think

you are just going to prolong their agony. They can only look

forward to two years more of concern and unease and perhaps

agitation from the children themselves who are in the agitating

teenage group.

I think that it is not sufficient for you to just lightly

dismiss it as "it was an idea I threw out." Because whether or

not it was, the fat is in the fire; the young people are

concerned; some of them are going to use this against their

adopting parents.

I represent a family who is involved in this. They have been

having problems with one of the boys whom they have from the

reserve. They have been working it out and it's got a

reasonable chance of success. But now he is throwing the old

hatchet at them, saying: "The government says I can see my

parents. I want to know." And the reason that he wants to get

out from under them is because there is an opportunity to get

into a much more lax environment.

So that is just one case, without going into a lot of

details, where this casual comment, or this throwing out of an

idea, is causing great problems in one family, and I would

suggest that this is repeated around the province.

I would like to know from you, Mr. Minister, who came to you

with this idea. Have you got it in writing? Will you table it

in the House?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to

reject completely the Hon. Member's suggestion that this was a

lightly-considered idea. Nothing I do in this department or

statements I make is done in a light fashion at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEVI: I have been in this business long enough to

know what's going on, having had 16 years' practical experience

in the field. I don't do anything lightly in terms of proposing

ideas in relation to children or anyone who is covered by the

legislation in this department.

It is not a frivolous idea. I pointed out in my remarks in

second reading a range of things that we were thinking about.

This is a style of the government. We like to let people know

what we are thinking.

What you are talking about has no relationship to the

principle of the bill. The principle of the bill deals with the

rights of children.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, we are dealing now with

[ Page 793 ]

another question. We are dealing with the question that I

pointed out to the House, that no one is going to have imposed

on them that they will have to have some kind of meeting with

the child's natural parents. If there's no agreement then

nothing will happen. In any case, this applies to children past

the age of 19. This does not apply to young children.

In terms of my experience, as I said when I got up before to

speak, I have had a large number of young people come to me

asking this very question.

I pointed out in second reading that I had been discussing

with the Children's Aid Society, with a Mrs. Mulwinkel — it's

in the Hansard — about this kind of idea. It was brought on as

an idea. It was not brought on as policy as I've expressed.

Again, it is not policy and it is not going to become

policy.

But it will be discussed. We are not prepared to put things

under the mat. Nobody has to have any anxieties about it.

In respect to the Indians, we are meeting with them. We have

continued to meet with them over the past several months. I

must say that we have had some disappointment in response to

the request which was made on several occasions that they make

available to us suggestions on prospective adoptive parents who

are Indians and also in relation to foster care.

We are quite prepared, and we are doing it now, to assist

Indians regardless of their status in any number of programmes.

We have taken the position that if these programmes in respect

to status Indians are not provided by Indian Affairs, then we

are going to provide them and have the discussion afterwards

with Indian Affairs about the financing. We are doing this in a

very practical way.

When I spoke to Mr. Paul the other day we said that we would

be having further discussions with them about the subsidized

adoption question. And I assured Mrs. Charlie that we would be

meeting to discuss not only the homemaker programme but the

receiving-home suggestions that she had made.

I think we have been as open and as communicative as we can

with the Indians. They have come to us. We have met with them.

We have now made proposals and we will be meeting with them

again, as I said, in respect to the recommendations we want to

make about the Superintendent of Child Welfare notifying the

Registrar-General.

Let me reiterate, there is nothing frivolous about anything

that I say in this House. I am only too aware that when we get

up to speak it has to be in such a way that people don't get

mixed messages. At the same time, the House has a right to

know, and so do the people, not necessarily the direction we

are going specifically, but certainly some of the ideas we are

considering and have been asked to consider.

That's what we have done. We open up to as great an extent as possible the

thinking that's going on in the department. That was simply what I attempted

to do and what I think by and large I succeeded in doing, when I introduced

the bill in second reading.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

think we have made it clear that we support the legislation. We

recognize the dilemma the Minister has and we appreciate his

sincere motivation. But I have reservations about the course of

action that we are pursuing with some of the legislation that

we are bringing in now and some that we brought in under the

former administration.

I don't believe we should practise apartheid I'd

Canada; I don't think we should encourage it either by law or

in economics. I think the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), in

many speeches in this House, has expressed that that's his view

too. If we try to sort people out in Canada by races we don't

run into problems just with adoption; we run into problems of

quarter-breeds and half-breeds and all the kinds of things that

have plagued countries that have had apartheid as a definite,

conscious policy of government.

Here in Canada we are doing it in a slightly different way.

We are bringing in all kinds of economic incentives for the

Indian people for good and legitimate social reasons. But at

the same time we turn our backs on the host of other social

problems that this kind of economic incentive based on racial

heritage inevitably brings down upon us.

The adoption problem, I think, is a classic example of that

difficulty. This really creates for us in Canada, for the

Indian and the non-Indian people, a moral question that needs

to be faced squarely. Do we believe in apartheid in Canada or

do we not" When we've come face to face with that question then

we'll begin. to bring in legislation that makes long-term

common sense.

What we are doing now with one piece of legislation at the

federal level, another piece of legislation at the provincial

level, is to create problems rather than to solve them. I don't

believe in apartheid. I think it is wrong; I think it is wrong

in any nation on this earth. Until we can learn to assist

people who need assistance on the basis of their individual

circumstances and not on the basis of their race, we are going

to build social problems that fester generation after

generation after generation.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister, he can't possibly

produce an overall long-term solution, nor can his government.

But at least he, and all of us, can face the problem honestly

and squarely.

This piece of legislation, quite frankly, encourages

apartheid, no matter how worthy its purpose. And here I am,

having spoken against it, saying I'll support the bill — because I think right at this moment perhaps it's the

appropriate thing to do.

I know we are not supposed to criticize judges, but

[ Page 794 ]

I think it's stemming from a rather stupid decision.

Somebody read the fine print in the law and decided to create a

social problem because of it. But maybe, just maybe, a service

has been done by that.

If this kind of thing brings us to our senses so that we

don't try to deal with the question with legislation such as

Bill 12 but begin to ask the fundamental question — do we

believe in apartheid? — make a fundamental decision yes or no,

and, having made that decision — and I'm certain that the

decision will be no — then we begin to tailor our legislation,

all of it, federally and provincially, to building the only

kind of country which will have long-term survival in this

world, namely one that's dedicated to the betterment of all its

citizens on an equal basis.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12,

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, committee

on Bill 30.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Schedule approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 48.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 2(3), line

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have the amendment signed and delivered

to the desk?

MR. McGEER: Yes, it will be, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize

we were going into committee on this particular bill.

The amendment is to strike out the word "he" and substitute

the words "the Minister". This is done, Mr. Speaker, in

deference to the very capable lady Minister Without Portfolio

(Hon. Ms. Young). I well recognize that this is frequently done

and it's an accepted procedure in drafting legislation for the

male-chauvinist legislative draftsman to continually refer to

Ministers as "he". But this is manifestly incorrect. I don't

think we should be male-chauvinist legislators, even if there's

a male-chauvinist legislative draftsman…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: …or Premier, yes. So what this amendment is

intended to do — it's a very simple thing. I'm not going to

belabour the point — is just to strike a blow for cabinet

equality — not to refer to the Minister as "he" when the

Minister very obviously is "she." And I hope it's going to

remain "she" as long as this government is in office. So, Mr.

Chairman, I move the following amendment — it's on the order

paper, page 36.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): This is a

trivial amendment moved by a trivial party…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MS. YOUNG: …a party that is traditionally two steps

and three years behind where it's really at. A party, Mr.

Chairman, that had to be coerced into running any women

candidates in the

[ Page 795 ]

last election by the Vancouver Status of Women Council…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Untrue! Not true.

HON. MS. YOUNG: …and also ran the fewest women of all the

major parties in the province. It is also the party which only

in the past couple of months has seen fit to disband the ghetto

of their ladies' auxiliary, their Liberal Women's Association.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: A liberal speaks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MS. YOUNG: As I said before, this is the party that's

two steps and three years behind of what's really going on with

the people in this country and in this province. That's why

they number only five over there; that's why they're in a

minority position in Ottawa today.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is so important to that

little party, let them have their little amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister is going to allow the

amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister:

does the Hon. Minister accept the amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it's irrelevant to you who

accepts what. We vote on these things.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, the amendment is in order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if those two tigers want to go at

it, they can carry on.

If the Minister's statements that she just made are an

example of her reply in a positive vein to something she

accepts, I rather wonder if I want to be around when she makes

the statement in a negative vein. I wonder just how the

consumers of this province are going to benefit.

However, I think, in speaking on behalf of our party, that

this amendment is minor. I myself have never been known as a

"bra burner" — I need them myself.

I feel that extremism in the liberation movement has probably had some benefits

in waking up public attitudes, which is really where a good deal of the problem

is in discrimination against women. We all know that we cannot legislate open-mindedness

and tolerance, nor to a large degree can we legislate women's rights which should

be in terms of human rights. However, I think that when the Minister herself

has said very much in the forerunning of the more extreme liberation movement,

that she would be wise to accept this amendment, whether it's frivolous or not,

whether it's chauvinist male or chauvinist female. I think in itself just suggesting

that the term "Minister" be used instead of the designation of "he" or "she"

is certainly not going to do anyone any harm and we would propose to support

it.

It does not make any difference to this party whether the

Minister of consumer affairs, contrary to what the liberals

say, is a male or a female. What we want is a Minister of

consumer affairs who is going to be able to look out for the

legitimate right of the consumer in British Columbia, and do

this on the basis of fact and not on fiction — a point that

I'll have more to say about in the later sections of the

bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in

support of the amendment; thank the Minister for her kind and

gracious speech. (Laughter.) Thank her in particular for her

thoughtful and kind and measured words about my hon. friend for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and of course this party, and

the efforts we made to get lady candidates for our party to run

in the last election. I assure her we will continue that good

work.

I would like to point out that it was in recognition of this

gracious and kind and thoughtful friendly spirit that at second

reading of this bill, when of course we approved of it, that we

sent her flowers from this side of the House to that.

MRS. JORDAN: The Liberals are always trying to buy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We were thrilled to see that this gesture

of friendship and respect was reciprocated so well this

afternoon, or this morning, by our friend the Minister.

This is a small amendment. My colleague from Point Grey did

not labour the point, I feel. But we do feel that even in small

things, steps must be taken for equality of the sexes, just as

equality of race is a more important matter, perhaps, to some — about which my hon. friend from Point Grey spoke earlier this

morning, and very eloquently too. We would urge the government

to accept a minor amendment to take care of what we hope will

not be a drafting error repeated in the future.

[ Page 796 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to speak in favour

of the amendment. It gives me just a little concern to see the

Minister, in accepting an amendment, being as vitriolic as she

was.

One thing that I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is that

consumer protection must be meted out in indiscriminatory

fashion. As a result, if the dear little Liberals over here are

going to need protection on a consumer base — they are

consumers just like the rest of us are consumers — and if the

attitude of the Minister shall be to the Liberals what it is,

strictly because they do not have as many women candidates

running in their party, I'm wondering if we can be sure that we

will have consumer protection on the broadest base in British

Columbia. Or are people going to not receive protection on the

basis of how many women they happen to have in their employ?

I'm wondering whether we're going to get equal and adequate

coverage on every phase…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order, please.

HON. MS. YOUNG: (Mike not on.) …of the section.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SCHROEDER: My concern is this, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must respond to the point of

order. I believe the point of order was well taken and I would

ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment

rather than speculating on how the bill might be

implemented.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, please. My remarks are in

direct retort to the remarks of the Minister. If I'm going to

be called out of order in this regard, I don't understand why

you would not listen to our pleas for order at the time she was

speaking. I insist that you allow me to finish my remarks.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Point of order. Order. Order,

please!

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: This is a matter for consumer protection,

Madam.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that

when no point of order has been raised, I cannot pass judgment on it. However

when a point of order is raised, I must pass judgment and that's what I've done.

I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: My concern is that consumer protection be

meted out in the broadest possible base. If it cannot be meted

on that base, under the direction of this Minister, be it "he"

"she" or "it", then I think we must press for another Minister

to handle this portfolio.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 approved with amendment.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would you mind, Mr. Chairman,

asking the lady Minister if it's okay if I say a few words, since she seems

to be…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You have the permission of the

Chair to speak, that's adequate. You're speaking to

section

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. I'm glad that you have taken

authority back to yourself, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in this particular

section there

is one particular word that causes me a great deal of concern.

It's subsection (b), where it says: "to examine consumer

affairs legislation both in Canada and elsewhere." Now, Mr.

Chairman, "elsewhere" covers a lot of ground. I want the lady

Minister to assure me and the House that she does not plan on

jetting around the world to check consumer affairs in other

countries.

With this word in here she is given the power and she could

in essence, for instance, travel to communist countries to

examine the effects of single merchandise on the population of

that particular country. She could examine the effects of the

production of foodstuffs, which is state controlled, and I know

her feelings, by statements that she has previously made, that

our system of having too much variety of the same product is

not absolutely necessary.

[ Page 797 ]

She could, for instance, travel to a Communist country and

come back and say that we don't need a variety of television

sets, that the production should be for one particular set and

the state, under the department of communications that's being

set up, could control the quality of that particular set and

that's all we would have: one colour, one size.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. The rest of them would be out of

business and there would be no competition to come up with new

ideas and develop a better product.

This word "elsewhere." Now if it were going to be that the

words "North America" were in there, I could see it. But this

"elsewhere" gives this Minister the leeway and the authority to

travel anywhere in the world. And knowing as I do how these

Ministers on that side of the House love to travel around the

world, I could envision the Minister next summer taking a trip

around the world, under the authority of this legislation where

it says, "to examine in Canada and elsewhere."

I want the Minister, before we pass this section, to assure

me that she's not going to go jetting around the world at the

expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia to check how

consumer affairs work in state-controlled Communist

countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've gone to the opposite extreme.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman,

I think that that's the point. For all too long the average

people in this province, the consumers, received absolutely no

protection from the previous government. Now that a worthwhile

bill is being put before you, you're trying to raise false

smoke screens. You're going off Red-baiting.

For years and years you exported millions of tons of copper,

of coal, of iron, virtually gave it away as far as the Treasury

of this province. Now that we're attempting to pass legislation

to protect the consumers, after 20 years of having left them to

the avail of the great foreign corporations that were allowed

to come in here and exploit the consumers, now that we are

passing consumer legislation, you're doing everything you can

to block it. And you're going to fail.

But let the world know that this is the first government in

this province that has stood up and attempted to pass

legislation for the consumers. After the next election that

little group will be a great deal smaller, because the

consumers are now onto their game.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we had any doubts about this legislation

before, we certainly have them now. That rags-to-riches, jet-set Minister who

gets up and waves….

AN HON. MEMBER: High-flying Bill.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: And every trip justified and not one trip

outside of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You were the highest flier of

them all, next to Phil.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll challenge you to beat my record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no desire to be that irresponsible.

(Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Well, a $31,000 tax-free income from the

taxpayers of British Columbia is not irresponsible, Mr.

Chairman? This province can hardly stand up with his year's

record of mismanagement of the people's money in this province.

And he calls himself responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to return to my speech, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to both sides of

the House to refrain from using inflammatory language, such

words as were used by Members on both sides of this House in

the last half-hour. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't dream of disturbing this Friday

morning. What I would like to do is return to

section 5 of this

bill. I was not here for second reading, but I must indeed

express the concern I feel in once again seeing written into

the legislation by this government nothing but authority to

carry out authority. We see that this Minister is being given

the right to confer any amount of duties, any amount of

responsibility to anyone she so chooses. We feel that this is

again an irresponsible action on the part of this

government.

The Premier of this province asked for this legislation on

the basis that he had appointed a high-priced Minister Without

Portfolio with nothing to do and that he wanted the authority

to give her something to do. What we want to know is: what is

she going to do?

All we find in this

section is that she has the power to do

whatever she wants to; and yet we have no statements from her

that can give us any assurance

[ Page 798 ]

and confidence in her ability.

I would be inclined to be much more open-minded about this,

because I have seen the Minister Without Portfolio in the House

and I know her to be a person of dedicated ideals. I think that

we all expected a great deal from her. But when I was in the

Interior recently the only comment that got through to the

Interior about this bill from this Minister Without Portfolio

was that she wasn't going to but she could do a "hatchet job on

Eaton's," with not one single fact to substantiate that

statement. I did indeed then become concerned and I think the

people of this province have reason to be concerned.

Consumer affairs has long been a great political football, a

great eyewash. The great Conservative province of Ontario

probably has the greatest example of eyewashing the public at

their own expense. If the Minister Without Portfolio has

studied their legislation, she knows that they have an

incredibly expensive department that is doing next-to-nothing

for the consumers of Ontario. We do not want this in British

Columbia.

We had an example of Beryl "Plump bottom," or

Plumptre, or whatever her name was, flying across Canada,

making irresponsible statements everywhere — or at first

statements that aroused public interest and then turned out to

be irresponsible. Through you, Mr. Chairman, a Minister of

consumer affairs indeed has a responsibility to the consumers

of their jurisdiction. But they have to remember that all

people are consumers, that business itself is a consumer. If

you want to do a hatchet job and you've got the facts then,

Madam, you have my blessing to do it. But be sure you have the

facts first. Don't destroy, along with some of the statements

made by your party, more than ever the credibility of the

people of British Columbia.

I'm not defending Eaton's. The Minister didn't give us any

statements as to whether we should be defending them or not.

But it was the innuendo without fact. This Minister must above

all, in protecting the consumer's rights, not make an

inflammatory statement against any consumer or any small

business or any large business, unless she can substantiate it,

and to do this in order to perpetrate the importance of her

department.

I certainly support this Act. But I would issue this strong

caution to the Minister and I would say without reservation how

very disappointed I was that she pulled a "Plumptre." We've got

people rioting, or gathering or meeting and protesting in

Ottawa over Mrs. Plumptre's statements. How do we know whether

in fact she's sincere, whether she found facts? She has a most

credible record for consumers in British Columbia, and

overnight she herself is destroyed and the whole effect of that

commission, minimal though it was, is depleted even more.

This Minister has a responsibility. While we don't accept the fact that you

have blank-cheque legislation before you, we do suggest to you that your responsibility

is to move in a responsible manner for all concerned. And where you want to

act, if you can show to us as legislators that it's based on fact, then you

will have our support. But if you go around making what I can only class as

stupid statements like "I could do a hatchet job" on a business in British Columbia,

then you will have nothing but our strongest disrespect, contempt, and every

effort to have the Minister changed.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the remarks of

the previous speaker, I would recommend that she read the

Hansard of the debate on second reading. I think in that debate

I outlined what direction I thought the department should take.

Perhaps I'm not speaking to the

section as I should. However, I

feel that I should perhaps repeat some of the points I raised

at that time.

The language of the bill was couched in such a manner as to

permit the study of existing consumer legislation that is on

the books, how it can be fitted into the department in an

orderly manner, what requires updating. Perhaps some is

obsolete, perhaps some is ineffective; how we can make it more

effective, more balanced.

Answering the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), no, I have no plans to go to any Communist country

to study their consumer affairs. In fact, I received a note

while this was going on. I know not whence it came but it says,

"Have they got $1.49 Day at GUM Stores?" I doubt it very much.

I believe that

section 5(

b) is pretty specific. It says, "to

examine consumer affairs legislation" — legislation — "both in

Canada and elsewhere…."

Now the staff I have and many, many interested people have

sent me legislation from all over the world concerning consumer

affairs. Some of the best consumer legislation I've ever seen

is coming out of Australia. In fact, I have

an Act in my

briefcase right now, Fair Trade Practices Act , that is before

the parliament of Australia.

The United Kingdom has some interesting legislation. West

Germany has some interesting ways of solving consumer

complaints; Sweden does also. We have been able to assemble

quite a body of legislation from different jurisdictions, and

how they have handled it. We're looking at some of the

interesting things that are going on in some of the American

states. I believe it is the State of Oregon…it's a minor

thing but it's an irritant to many consumers; there are

unsolicited phone calls such as, "if you can tell the state

wildflower, you have just won five free dance lessons at the

Arthur Murray studio" — or something of that nature. You've all

had these phone calls.

In Oregon they have a state law that requires that

[ Page 799 ]

if it is a phone call soliciting business or an offer of

services of some sort, they must identify themselves within 15

seconds. I think this is something that we could examine and

see if it would be applicable in British Columbia, or if the

people of British Columbia would like this thing. I know a lot

of people are annoyed by phone calls from real estate

companies: "Would you like to sell your home?" — et cetera.

They find it very irritating.

Consumer affairs people around the world seem to have a

brotherhood, sisterhood of communicating with each other and

passing along information to each other. We do this mainly by

mail. We don't necessarily have to go and talk to each other.

Sometimes it is helpful.

It was extremely helpful last May when I accompanied the

Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to the Consumer

Ministers' conference in Quebec City. This was most interesting

because we set a direction there at that time whereby the 10

provinces would work together to create uniformity in our

legislation so that the manufacturers, the dealers, the

wholesalers and the consumers all knew what the ground rules

were. This would benefit all sectors of the economy.

This is the sort of thing. I don't plan to jet off anywhere.

I am planning a personal trip to England next spring at my own

expense to take my mother home for the first time in 53 years.

I have an opportunity, fortunately, to meet with the Minister

of Consumer Affairs of the United Kingdom. That happened by

accident. One of the MPs that visited us recently is the

parliamentary secretary, so he is going to arrange an

appointment. I will be able, on my own time and everything, to

meet and perhaps discuss with him some of the things that the

United Kingdom is doing in this regard.

I feel as a consumer services person that I must be an

example — of saving money, of saving resources of this province — and I most certainly assure the Hon. Members I will endeavour

to do this to the utmost.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the

Minister for assuring the House of her intentions in this

regard. I didn't mean to check into your personal life or where

you're going, but I certainly appreciate the assurances. I

would certainly hope that the other Members of the cabinet who

are in the House today listened intently and will take an

example from you.

There is one other section, Mr. Chairman, that I would like

to ask the Minister to explain to me, and again assure the

House….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it a

section that has been

passed or is it one that we are coming to? Perhaps if you wait

until we come to it….

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about

section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'm saying that there is one other

subsection under

section 5 and it's subsection (d). The

subsection reads, "to disseminate information and educate the

consumers with respect to consumer affairs matters."

The Minister in second reading stated that she was planning

on setting up a group of educators who could go to the schools.

I would like the Minister again to assure me that the education

is going to be with regard to consumer legislation and the

rights to consumers only, not with regard to specific

merchandise. Because I think you could get into a very, very

delicate situation if you in any way, shape or form start

advising the public as to what merchandise is good and what

merchandise is not.

I agree wholeheartedly with your concept of educating young

people in the schools with regard to their rights as a

consumer, with regard to the laws of contracts and their rights

there, because there are a lot of people who do not understand

their rights. I agree that this should be taught. They should

be taught some business sense with regard to purchasing and the

effects of interest and credit. I agree with this. I think it's

an excellent idea the Minister has.

But please assure me and the House that you're not going to

get involved in telling people what merchandise is good and

what merchandise is not good. Because you have already, as I

discussed with you in second reading, been making statements

about certain large corporations. I would not want to see you

get involved in saying that one piece of merchandise is better

than another, or that you should stay away from something.

Unless the

article is completely faulty and dangerous…then

we all have a right to expose it.

Would you just assure me that you are going to educate

people with regard to their rights under the law and leave it

go at that?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I'm afraid I cannot give you that assurance,

Hon. Member, for this reason: one of the greatest aspects of

consumerism is quality of goods — quality for money. I think

that this also has to be taught in the schools. I think perhaps

that one of the best devices in the world to teach quality or

to be able to compare, say, one particular brand of a product

against another brand — because there's such a multiplicity of

brands on the market — is to use such things as Consumer

Report , and Canadian Consumer magazine.

I don't think these vehicles have enough visibility. Not

enough people are aware of the access to these excellent and

very neutral magazines and books.

[ Page 800 ]

Hopefully in the educational process I would like to see

people become aware that these things exist, and that when in

doubt, check.

Not every one of us is an expert on, say, television sets or

automobiles or washing machines; we just simply are not. We

have to rely on the advice of perhaps a salesman. I have found

that usually in rural communities you can pretty well rely on

the local merchant because he must remain friends with his

customers. He must stay there; his livelihood is there;

therefore he will serve his customers very well.

In the larger metropolitan areas I think it's been

discovered already that they don't have to be quite so careful.

So I think that one does have to teach quality. If it requires

naming a particular brand or model, or something of that

nature, then it will be done. It may also require it on a basis

of safety. Now we have seen in the past that some television

sets were ruled unsafe. Recently there have been some sets that

caught fire long after they were turned off and caused

conflagrations in people's homes.

In fact, I was informed of one very recently where their set

was picked up by the manufacturer because of this particular

problem, and it was replaced by the manufacturer. So there's a

safety factor involved too. All these are a part of

consumerism and I think that in the educational process this is

most necessary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now the Minister really has me worried because….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Liar.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, Mr. Premier, this happens to be a

very, very important matter and the Minister is taking unto

herself….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't like the Premier trying to crash

through, rush through, this legislation. We're discussing

something very, very important. We're discussing a principle

and we're discussing a very, very dangerous area that this

department is heading for, and I'm concerned about it, and I

mean it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's sweeping powers, it's vague, it's the

heavy hand of state socialism. Now what else do you have to say

about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, if you were half as intelligent as

you sometimes think you are, Mr. Premier, you'd be a lot

further ahead.

What I am concerned about — and I wish the Minister would

have told me that she wasn't going to enter this area because

in my wildest dreams I didn't think that she would. What you're

letting yourself open to is the exercise of pressure by some of

these large corporations to put their products through you — to get to give them their stamp of approval.

There have been cases in the past where consumer affairs

magazines have either given their stamp of approval to a

product or not depending on the amount of advertising that that

particular manufacturer puts in the magazine. This is what

you're leaving yourself open to. It's a very serious

matter.

Now you talk about safety. We have the Canadian Standards

Association that looks after the safety of most of the

merchandise that is involved. They've been doing an excellent

job and they're continually doing research.

Just a couple of years ago your own Department of Public

Works put out new safety standards for the trailer

manufacturers and camper manufacturers, and they did an

excellent job. Their standards in British Columbia are probably

higher than they are anywhere in the North American continent.

They are the experts who will have to decide that.

I don't think, Madam Minister, in all due respect to you,

that you can go out with your department and say whether an

item is safe or unsafe. It really concerns me. You could be

open to graft if a particular — and I'm going to follow this

right to its limit: if a particular manufacturing company that

you go to at election time for campaign funds doesn't happen to

want to contribute to your campaign, you could say, "Well,

we'll certainly see that the people of this province are

educated against using your product."

I'm not saying they could, but what I'm saying is that by

doing this the Minister is taking unto herself this

possibility. I don't like to see her have to be in this

situation. I'm as interested in protecting the rights of people

as anybody, and I am interested in people knowing their rights

so far as consumer legislation is concerned. But I can't say

that I want to pass a piece of legislation that's going to give

the Minister the right to go into the schools and teach our

children whether a particular product is better than another.

Because you're leaving yourself wide open to numerous pressures

from many sources, and you could eventually find yourself in

many legal battles.

If I were a manufacturer and had the Canadian Standards

Association stamp of approval on it for safety — just because

you don't like me or I don't happen to be of your political

faith, you could go around and put the stamp of disapproval on

my product. Where would I end up? Some cases like this have

happened in the past. Unfortunately I haven't taken the time to

do research on it, but this is the

[ Page 801 ]

type of area that you are leaving yourself wide open to.

I want to warn you again that I am against it and I will be

watching you very, very closely — and what you say. If there is

one case where you use your power against a particular company,

maybe sometimes even unknowingly, you will have to answer to

this Legislature.

So I want you to be very, very careful and just remember

that there are safety standards — the Canadian Standards

Association. And in many other areas — your own Department of

Public Works with regard to electrical wiring, gas-fitting and

so forth — these products have to be approved. So I wish you

would please assure me that you're going to use a tremendous

amount of discretion in this area, Madam Minister.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Speaking on this

section, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister-designate,

I'm still concerned about the comment that was made at second

reading with respect to this feeling of "let me at them," this missionary zeal, this "I can hardly wait to get my

hands around the Eaton's throat," as an example. That

worries me.

I hope that the Minister in her enthusiasm for her new

assignment will show some restraint and will avoid that kind of

comment because I don't really think that helps the department

which is proposed here; I don't think it helps relationships

between the government and very large and responsible

organizations such as Eaton's for the Minister to say — and I

don't have Hansard in front of me, but as closely as I can

recall — "I'm not going to do it, but I could do a hatchet job

on Eaton's."

As the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

mentioned, it is really not a very responsible way in which to

launch the department. If Eaton's or some other national

organization selling goods and services to people in British

Columbia deserves the kind of criticism that is implied in that

statement, then I would hope that the Minister would get in

touch with the company concerned before getting out the

hatchet.

I think that we have another lady running around the country

with a rather blunted hatchet and I'm not sure that that's

serving any useful purpose.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister well.

We need the department. But we need the department operated

with considerable restraint and a very strong degree of

responsibility. I would like the Minister at the appropriate

time, if she can, to somehow explain away the hatchet job

statement that we had in second reading because I find it very

disquieting indeed.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to go back once again to the Minister's statements.

I don't mean this critically, but when I asked for an explanation on the statement

that the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked about with

regard to these innuendoes against a major corporation or responsible corporation

in British Columbia, you said, "Look it up in Hansard ."

Now, through you, Mr. Chairman, to you Madam Minister

Without Portfolio at this time, it's the damage that is done

now and the damage that will be done in the future by

statements of any Minister that will be misinterpreted by the

media or picked up by the media because of a catch phrase. Am I

to go home to the constituents I represent and when they ask me

about this, say, "Go and read the Hansard "? The answer just is

not adequate.

Obviously the Minister is on the hook in this area and we

are all deeply concerned, and nobody wants to bang your head

against the wall, through you, Mr. Chairman, but let us assure

you of the need to use caution in the future and to learn from

this experience. I agree with the Member for Saanich and the

Islands: give us an explanation of why you made these

statements against this particular company.

I also was not reassured by the Minister's statement in

relation to the statements made by my colleague from the South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) on what authority you are going to

use in your educational programme. I'm concerned about in the

schools, but I'm also concerned about the general public. You

did mention Consumer Report and my colleague has mentioned some

of the very specific organizations that set standards and the

pitfalls here, but what bothers me also is what other

authorities this department and yourself as Minister are going

to use, One of the major problems we have in society today is the

self-styled expert. We have them in the media, we have them in

the government, we have them in the area of pollution control,

we have them in agriculture — people who've taken one little

thing and blown it up and have sold themselves as experts on

this, in fact, when you examine the whole situation, it's not

that at all.

If the Minister were to use these self-styled experts, it

might be very false information indeed. What is the Minister

going to use as a criterion in deciding who her authorities

will be?

This whole matter of recourse to the courts comes into this

bill very, very definitely. In relation to the Minister's

hatchet job on Eaton's, any statement made in this House leaves

any person immune for any type of court action. It also is not

possible in British Columbia to sue the Crown.

Now if the Minister is out and makes a misleading or

jeopardizing statement about a product or a company, big or

small, which in turn is a consumer, and this is false, there is

very little recourse that can

[ Page 802 ]

be taken by that offended individual if, in fact, that

statement is wrong.

They can take the Minister to court for this statement, but

who is going to pay the Minister's costs? Is it to be the

Crown, the taxpayers of British Columbia, for an irresponsible

statement that was made, not only if you are Minister but if

someone else is Minister? Are you going to open up an avenue

whereby, if any of your employees or you, yourself, as Minister

or any future Minister makes irresponsible statements, there

will be recourse to the offended product and its consumer

purchaser?

I would cite the classic example that I was involved in,

when this branch was first started in the government, over the

price of milk. The branch was dedicated to protecting the

consumer. A letter came in concerning why you couldn't buy milk

in volume. A position was taken by the branch which was

extremely detrimental to the agricultural industry and to the

milk producers in British Columbia, and also contrary to the

Act.

Now, this was a case of a person trying to do a proper job

in the context of what they were charged with doing, but in

fact led to tremendous conflict and was an unjustifiable move

on the part of the department. This problem was solved because

we got the consumer affairs officer in touch with the Milk

Board and they got the overall picture. His reply, which was

still in the best interests of the consumer, was much

different.

This was an internal problem and there was no thought or

need for court action. But this could happen in an external

area and what will be the recourse for these people in relation

to damage to their product, damage to their reputation, maybe

at times damage to a consumer's reputation, recognizing that if

they are big, they've got money to fight you and if they're

small, they haven't? I would like some assurance on this in

relation to the information that you are going to give to the

public.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think many of the Members

are anxious to hear from the Minister before this

section

passes because it is quite critical how the powers in this

section will be handled.

I apologize for not having been here and been aware that the

Minister had named a corporation in British Columbia and

indicated that she was prepared to show restraint in not doing

a hatchet-job on that particular corporation, because clearly

by implication, at least in the Minister's mind, that

corporation is guilty of unethical consumer practices. I don't

think a large corporation's neck is likely to be wrung by any

Minister of this House.

Nevertheless, vicious attacks can do damage — except to opposition Members of

the Legislature — and therefore there is some potential harm that can be done

by statements in the House. Ministers are expected to back up any statements

that they make with legitimate facts or to apologize for the statements that

are made.

I think the Minister owes it to this House, owes it to the

people of British Columbia and owes it to the corporation named

either to substantiate the statement which she made in this

House or to withdraw unequivocally any suggestion that that

corporation was guilty of any wrong-doing by means of a public

apology. I think if the Minister is prepared to do either one

or the other, then we will have some reassurance that, if this

section is passed, the portfolio will be handled in a

responsible way in the future.

So, Mr. Chairman, through you, I hope that the Minister will

either correct the record with an apology or give us

information as to the wrong-doing of this particular

corporation.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, the information I gave the

House was correct. I'm wearing the very shoes that it happened

to; I'm not wearing the two slips that it happened to. It was

intemperate language on my part, I do concur. I also concur

that I had merely to take the merchandise back and Eaton's

would have replaced it. I have been told since that they would

have come and picked it up if I was annoyed.

But the point I was trying to make was that I'm one of

thousands of working women who simply do not have the time to

take a slip back because the straps disintegrate the first time

you put it on, or to take a pair of shoes back the week after

you buy them to have the buckle replaced. These are constant

little annoyances to which you say, "Oh, to heck with it; I'll

fix it myself or I'll take off the other buckle."

I appreciate the fact that Eaton's has built their business

on money-back guarantees: "Satisfaction or money back, "

and it is cross-country. I appreciate that, but still and all,

from the mail that I have received, I think I was expressing to

some degree some of the feeling in the community. This is not

only true of that particular store, but of the quality of

merchandise anywhere: somehow it is just not what it should

be.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: This is it. This is something else that has

to be sorted out: the responsibility of the dealer; the

responsibility of the manufacturer. We are running into this

problem and I would say that all provinces are running into

this problem. I discussed that in my opening remarks at second

reading in reference to warranties and the Green Paper that is

now being circulated from the Ontario consumer Minister. All

the provinces of Canada are currently

[ Page

803 ]

reading it with great interest.

I believe that's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: Certainly I, as an individual, appreciate the

Minister's candour in admitting an intemperate statement. We

appreciate it and we accept it. We hope that it will be learned

and we do feel still that damage has been done to Eaton's in a

manner that the Minister has now herself brought out. Their

policy — and I'm not defending them; they may have some bad

policies — has always been to try to give a customer

satisfaction. Your complaint really was not with Eaton's, your

complaint was with the manufacturer of the ladies lingerie that

you purchased and the manufacturer of the shoes.

This is a very important area that does have to be sorted

out because I'm sure it's beyond the realm of thought that a

reputable dealer who takes reasonable precautions can, in fact,

test every pair of shoes that they handle or every fishing rod

or anything else they buy from reputable producers. Certainly

the major companies do, and they in turn offer

satisfaction.

So we want to leave with you again our appreciation for your

candour on this. We hope that the media will be very generous

on this point in not leaving the impression that in this

particular instance a responsible department store in British

Columbia was, in fact, deserving of a black eye. We ask the

Minister to be very aware of the manufacturing aspect in terms

of responsibility and, again, as I say, we appreciate her

candour.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say one short word here. I want

to point out again to the lady Minister that exactly what I

have been warning her about in educating with regard to

merchandise has already happened. In a very innocent way you

have condemned a department store. You could have done

irreparable damage to, that department store.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Ah, come on, get off

this.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish that if the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has got a speech to

make on consumerism, he would stand in the Legislature and ask

the Chairman if he could speak and make his speech. If the

Attorney General, who has got so much to say about this

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. Well, get up and say what you've got to say.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister….

MRS. JORDAN: Don't defend her; she's doing fine.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm defending what she said in terms of

the shoddy goods that have been flooding the marketplaces of

the world in an age when the consumer is being exploited by

poorly-made goods, whether it's in the automobile field,

consumer articles of all kinds….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're backing up on it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. And this Minister, therefore….

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Minister does a public service when

she complains…

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't lose your blood pressure, Mr.

Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …about the kind of shoddy goods that

are placed on the consumers of Canada. There's got to be public

education and there have to be public warnings from the

Minister and from this government with respect to these goods

if we're ever going to get back to goods that embody some of

the craftsmanship of an earlier age.

MR. PHILLIPS: She should warn the public about you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mass production, shoddy goods, sometimes

dangerous goods are something that all of us in this

Legislature have to speak up about and not be afraid that we

are engaging in free speech and that our comments and our

remarks are forthright, that our warnings are very clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: But let's rap the right knuckles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sure. This is the complaint — shoddy goods — and I applaud the Minister for the action she is

taking in this respect. It is public education and it is for

the public good.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the Attorney General passed another cloud of motherhood

over the Legislature, clothed in goodness….

[ Page

804 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask for the

courtesy of being able to recognize the speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I say, the

Attorney General got up and brought in another cloud of

motherhood over the Legislature. I realized all this and the

Attorney General is smarter…. I give the Attorney General

credit for having more intelligence — and he knows the point I

am talking about. If he had stayed in and paid attention to the

whole debate, he would know exactly what I am talking about. I

am warning the lady Minister against taking one piece of

merchandise and educating people of this province against

it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't warn the Minister. She is

defending consumers throughout the province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, sure. You talk about all this shoddy

merchandise — you know that there is only about 5 per cent of

the merchandise ever sold that comes even near to being shoddy

and yet you start talking about this motherhood of all this

shoddy merchandise. You would think that this world hadn't

progressed at all.

I want to tell you that over the past 10 years there has

been more advancement made in putting out good merchandise than

there has in the previous 100 years. There has been a lot of

good work done. When we should have had the department of

consumer affairs was back in the first 12 years after World War

II. That's when we should have had a department of consumer

affairs.

I want to tell you there has been a fantastic amount of

progress made in putting good merchandise on the market. Now,

after all this has happened, we bring in this "oh, everything

is shoddy and we are going to educate the public against one

product against another."

As I started to say before I was so rudely interrupted by

the Attorney General, what I have been warning the Minister

about has already, in essence, happened. Because by a slip of

the tongue, she got up and condemned not any particular piece

of merchandise but a whole department store — one that has

built its, reputation in North America for satisfaction or

money freely refunded. She has done irreparable damage to the

reputation of Timothy Eaton's. I think she should get up and

apologize — not just withdraw and say she used a little

indiscretion. She should get up and apologize and say that it

is a good department store.

I don't know, maybe the slip she took home was too small and

broke the straps. I don't know; we don't know all sides of the

story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, please. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: We have to go by what the Minister says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Well, Mr. Chairman, it moves back and forth. Thank you very much.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm certainly glad to see you standing

on your feet instead of speaking across the floor.

HON. MR. COCKE: I would like to make a couple of points

here. One point is that this government and this House should

never gag anybody. The fact of the matter is: the Minister of

consumer affairs is to do a job in British Columbia; she can't

do a job if she goes around gagged, and this Member over here

wants to gag her. You know, it's an interesting situation, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to suggest how frivolous this Member has

been treating this whole question.

Fifteen or 20 minutes ago, an hour ago, or whatever it was,

he supported a resolution that changed this legislation. Since

then, he keeps calling this Minister "that lady Minister." Now,

what kind of a situation is this? Discrimination right here in

the face of having just passed a resolution that wouldn't

indicate sex. Now, for heaven's sake!

MR. PHILLIPS: Is your wife in the gallery?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, the

word that has caused the greatest problem dealing with quality

is the word "guarantee." It means absolutely nothing without

specifics — the Attorney General is indicating that he is

agreeing with my remarks. It means absolutely nothing without

the worth of the guarantor being indicated.

Now, this is a word that seriously crippled the economy of

B.C. in one specific instance. This was in the instance of

Commonwealth Trust Company. The criticisms of the word

"guarantee" were raised by the former Attorney General (Mr.

Bonner); they were raised by Mr. Peterson when he was Attorney

General; now we hear the present Attorney General also putting

his hands up and saying: "Yes, by golly, we've got to do

something about it."

Yet, absolutely nothing has been done to regulate the

extremely loose use of that particular word. I think until such

time as that is done, the public can continue to expect many,

many pitfalls arising from it.

I suppose the Midas Muffler people have done a better job

than any of the politicians bringing to the

[ Page 805 ]

attention of the general public the absolute worthlessness

of the word "guarantee" unless a person is aware of the worth

of the guarantor and of the actual specifics of the

guarantee.

Also, dealing with the Attorney General's remarks: the

springing to the assistance of the lady cabinet Minister — she's the type of lady, I think, who really doesn't want to

have male assistance. Also the Minister of Health and Hospital

Insurance is springing to her assistance. I don't think she

really needs all that help. I think she is able to get by on

her own hook.

It makes me rather wonder in the Attorney General's remarks

about shoddy goods as to whether or not the proliferation of

shoddy goods on the marketplaces of the world have come about

in direct relation to the proliferation of socialistic

governments throughout the world. I am very glad to hear that

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) agrees with that,

because I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the best goods in

the world have been produced by the capitalistic countries,

make no mistake of that. And none of you people would be here

but for capitalism. You're enjoying the fruits of capitalism,

my friends. Make no mistake about that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

we are debating

section 5, are we not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would appeal to the Hon. Members to

keep their remarks reasonably relevant to

section 5.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Minister would mind

considering a couple of questions.

section 5 is for purposes

and functions of your department. In the light of what the Hon.

Attorney General has said about vast quantities of shoddy

merchandise being available, does the Minister agree with that

statement? If she does, is it her intention, through her

department, to establish some kind of testing bureau where

merchandise made available for sale in this province will need

to get some approval before it can be placed on the shelves of

stores and available to customers? If we have all this shoddy

merchandise, then there is only one way that you can protect

the consumer — first of all test it, then warn them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

be a little quieter so that we may hear the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't care whether

they hear; I want the Minister to hear what I am saying.

If that's your intention, I would like to know if we are going to have a research

department, and all shirts and socks and everything are going to go through

and come out with a stamp on it.

Secondly, would the Minister please indicate whether she's

going to have an investigative branch — people who will be

moving about this province snooping, investigating what is

available in the stores and whether or not whatever regulations

her department may put forward are being carried out? We know

this is already done by the federal department which has a

responsibility in this area. They check into advertising,

misleading and others.

My third question is the extent to which she will use the

facilities of the federal department or what arrangements there

have been for coordination of her departmental role with the

federal department.

HON. MS. YOUNG: As far as product-testing goes, Mr.

Chairman, we have done considerable thinking on this point. We

realize that attempting to build a testing facility is quite an

expansion; it's quite an investment. We have thought that when

we see the need to investigate or to test a particular product,

to seek out a private laboratory or private testing agency or

use the B.C. Research Council facilities to do the testing that

we think is required.

We only anticipate doing this kind of testing where we will

be receiving a large number of complaints about a big-ticket

item or an item involving safety, an item that appears to have

dangerous features about it and may need some testing to

ascertain whether it is dangerous or not.

As far as investigating, yes, I plan to have an

investigative staff, but not particularly to go around and

snoop. We may run across problems where we have to investigate

whether a particular door-to-door organization is licensed or

may not be operating in the best interests of consumers; we

might want to know who the principals are of that company; we

may want to know their techniques, how they're going about it.

There are many areas where we would be using investigators. I

don't think we would be going into stores — although I've seen

it done in the States — where the laboratory goes in and picks

merchandise off the shelf, buys it, takes it out and tests it.

We do not anticipate doing anything of that nature.

We have had some communication with the federal department;

we plan to set up a good liaison with them. We have not as yet

been able to do so because we haven't had a department. When we

do have a department we will definitely be working closely with

the federal department, hopefully complementing each other

rather than crossing each other's trails and duplicating each

other's efforts.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this section, I

have another phase of consumerism that I

[ Page 806 ]

would like to discuss with the Minister with regard to

education.

Under the previous administration there was a law passed in

this province prohibiting the advertisement of a certain

product; and that certain product was tobacco. This great

people's government, which is so interested in protecting the

consumers against shoddy merchandise — one of the first pieces

of legislation to p