1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

False accusation of child abuse. Ms. Brown –– 4031

Takeover of Rayonier Canada Ltd. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4032

Mr. Lockstead –– 4032

Nonteaching support services for blind students. Mr. Levi –– 4032

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Mr. Macdonald –– 4033

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 4033

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4033

Mines Act (Bill 39). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On the amendment to

section 1 –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

section 1 as amended –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

section 3 –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

Mr. D'Arcy

section 5 –– 4036

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Hanson

section 7 –– 4037

Mr. D'Arcy

section 12 –– 4037

Mr. Hanson

section 11 –– 4038

Mr. Passarell

section 19 as amended –– 4038

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Hanson

Division on

section 19 as amended –– 4039

On the amendment to

section 37 –– 4040

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Hanson

Mrs. Wallace

Family and Child Service Act (Bill 45). Second reading,

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4045

Ms. Brown –– 4046

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4053

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4054

Division on second reading –– 4055

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR 403). Second reading.

Mr. Ritchie –– 4055

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Le-ion Act (Bill PR 404). Second reading.

Mr. Davis –– 4055

Appendix –– 4056

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to tell you and the members that I have

constituents in the gallery today: Mrs. Marion Muir, her son Mark and

her father, Mr. Edwin Floata.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have

in the gallery today two residents of Britannia Beach, Mr. Bob Anderson

and Helen Coulas. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like the House to welcome a cousin of mine visiting me from Longview, Washington, Sister Eleanor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm pleased to introduce a constituent — and perhaps more than one — of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). A good friend

of mine from many years back, Mr. Alan Clegg, is here with some family

members and visitors from England. I'd like the House to make them all

welcome.

CLERK ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

MR. LAUK: I ask leave to move that question period be delayed....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Before the motion is put the member must

first seek the floor to make a motion. At this time, hon. member, we

have called for the introduction of bills.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That should be interesting. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: In view of the standing orders requiring the attendance of all members in the House....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

I would ask for order from all hon. members so that the Speaker can

hear my point of order clearly. In view of that standing order, I ask

the Speaker to rule that the division bells be rung again in compliance

with that standing order, so that various members of cabinet can be

present for question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Notwithstanding the member's point, it is not the responsibility of the

Chair to ensure that members be in their places. That is an undertaking

by each and every hon. member of this House.

MR. LAUK: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, before engaging in what appears to be the

next point — and far be it for the Chair to rule on a matter in anticipation

— I must, nonetheless, caution the member, before he maybe thinks of the motion

he might possibly be putting forward, that such a motion could very well be

entertained as a breach of the rules of this House and be entertained as such

by the Speaker. Hon. member, I'm sure that's not the position that the

member would like to put the Chair in.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to make any motion that would be

a breach of the rules. Certainly, in anticipating the next step, as Mr.

Speaker has done, any appeal of the Speaker's ruling, of course, is

never a breach of the rules; it's always in order. So if Mr. Speaker's

ruling is that my point is not to be entertained, then I appeal your

ruling to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the best of the immediate recollection of the Chair, no ruling was made.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Speaker, rule one way or the other that the division bells

can or cannot be rung to have cabinet ministers in their seats for

question period.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member across the way seeks

only to maintain decorum in this House and would never put forward a

mischievous or frivolous point while standing on a point of order.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that a ruling can be

considered when there are rules already written in our order books.

Those rules are clearly there for all of us to see and they don't

necessarily require an

interpretation by the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Again, on the point of order raised by the first member for Vancouver

Centre, there is neither precedent nor tradition for the action that

the member requested the Speaker to take. However, Mr. Clerk,

possibly....

MR. LAUK: On a further point of order, I would ask that Mr. Speaker take my views into consideration.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He will certainly give them the full consideration they deserve, hon. member.

Oral Questions

FALSE ACCUSATION OF CHILD ABUSE

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Earlier this year it

was discovered that the government had been keeping records of

frivolous and unsubstantiated complaints against teachers. Now it has

been reported that the same approach has been adopted by the Ministry

of Human Resources child abuse program, and that files of

unsubstantiated complaints are kept for seven years. In order to avoid

this unwarranted intrusion into family life, has the minister decided

to make legislative provision for victims of unsubstantiated complaints

and to have these complaints expunged from the record?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to respond to the hon. member for

Burnaby–Edmonds by saying that I have asked my ministry to anticipate

the problem that would arise if someone were to phone in and give a

report on child abuse and neglect that was unsubstantiated and found to

[ Page 4032 ]

untrue. I have asked my ministry to look into that. I will have to

report back to the House on further action that may be taken in that

regard.

However, in response to the member, may I explain at

the same time that I believe the member is referring to a newspaper

article printed in the past two days, in which it was claimed that our

ministry was very aggressively investigating a complaint that was

phoned to the Helpline for Children, and that the complaint was lodged

on the basis that there were two children who were being mistreated.

May I say that in that newspaper clipping the name of the family was

not used. Therefore what I share with you today is not a breach of

confidentiality, and I am able to give you, in very vague terms,

something about the background of that case.

I want you to

know that the investigation that my staff carried out was done because

of a phone call to the Helpline. The telephone accusation of child

abuse has been found to be essentially false and malicious, but there

were adequate grounds for investigating the complaint — grounds that

emanated from a complaint that had been lodged by a school principal in

earlier years in another city. Because of that allegation, which had

been lodged by a different party altogether in another time and place,

we and our staff felt it very necessary to follow up on that complaint.

I'd

also like to share with the House the fact that in child-abuse and

child-neglect cases very often our staff does act on the concerns that

are expressed. They always follow up a Helpline cry for help. Very

often in looking at cases of actual child abuse, a series of things has

happened over a number of years where child abuse is actually found to

be a fact of life. It is these little things that add up over the years

that have led people in our ministry to be able to find child abuse

before the child becomes a statistic and is no longer living. The

Helpline for Children has been very successful, but there is no

question that we have had some calls that have not been well-founded

calls. But I would share with the House too that those calls that have

come in that have been frivolous or mischievous have been investigated

and my ministry has dealt with them very professionally.

MS. BROWN:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little bit more

brief than the minister was in her response. In February of this year I

brought to the minister's attention a confidential report which came

into my possession from her ministry dealing with this. On March 22 I

received a letter from the minister which said: "The ministry's family

and children's services division is in the process of reviewing the

reporting system and the use of the registry in order to ensure that

unsubstantiated complaints are removed." I was very surprised by that

newspaper

article which showed that the minister had not followed

through on that commitment which she made in March.

However,

my supplementary is to the Attorney-General. There have been reports

that with no more information than a crank or malicious call parents

and children have been subjected to a humiliating investigation

including medical examination and review by the Ministry of Human

Resources and medical officials. Have you, Mr. Attorney-General,

decided to investigate the procedures used by the Ministry of Human

Resources to ensure that they are consistent with the due process of

law?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. The information

which the member has provided and requested today is the first notice

that I have had of this concern. If the member will be good enough to

provide me with particulars of her concern I'd be pleased to make

certain that the legislative provisions are reviewed.

TAKEOVER OF RAYONIER CANADA LTD.

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. With respect to the

minister's examinations of the proposed takeover of Rayonier, has the

minister decided to require the companies involved to maintain the

existing level of employment at Port Alice and other Rayonier

operations before he gives his approval of the takeover?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the examination of the pros and cons of this takeover are

just beginning. Of course the continuation of employment in the various

communities will be of prime concern to us.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, will the minister give the House the assurance that the

level of employment at Port Alice in particular will be maintained, as

was agreed in the TFL granted in 1950, which ensured that about 80

percent of the pulpwood from TFL 6 would go to Port Alice? Will the

minister ensure that that operation will continue prior to giving any

approval? I appreciate there are a lot of other considerations, but

this is one assurance that we want at this point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the companies that are taking over ITT Rayonier's

operations will obviously be coming forth with their plans for the

plants. I can't guarantee the member that the plants will continue as

they are. As the member probably knows, there has been some suggestion

that perhaps the plants need updating and modernization, and this, in

itself, could have effects on employment. But we're interested in the

efficient use of the Crown resource and the maintenance of all possible

employment by that use.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand from that that the minister does not guarantee that that level of employment will stand at Port Alice.

have another question to the minister. Has the minister decided whether

the current in-depth analysis of Rayonier's management of TFL 6 will

continue?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

change of ownership of tree-farm licence No. 6 will not change our

investigation. That investigation will continue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a supplementary to the same minister. Will the minister now tell

this House that there will be a full public inquiry into this so-called

Rayonier takeover?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I won't.

NON-TEACHING SUPPORT

SERVICES FOR BLIND STUDENTS

MR. LEVI: I have a

question for the Minister of Education. A daughter of a constituent is

blind and attending the regular school system. She's moving from junior

to senior high school this September and needs the assistance of a

[ Page 4033 ]

person

who can give her mobility training. I'm informed that such assistance

is not available because this program has been frozen by Treasury

Board. Since the minister's policy is to ensure that all handicapped

students capable of benefiting from public school instruction shall be

given the non-teaching support services they need, I would like to ask

the minister what steps he has decided to take to get the program

unfrozen by Treasury Board, as school starts in about two weeks' time.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I want to thank the member for giving me notice of this matter. I can

assure him that this program is not frozen in Treasury Board, but it's

in Treasury Board. I will get it through Treasury Board.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I don't know whether to quit — whether I'm behind or whether I'm in front here. [Laughter.]

want to ask a supplementary question of the Premier, who is president

of the council. Could the minister ask his Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis), who is responsible for Treasury Board, to use all possible

speed in getting this unfrozen, because parents with blind children

have to know within the next two weeks what is going to happen in

respect to this program. It's absolutely essential that they know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I think we would be engaging in a very new area if we

were to allow questions for a minister to address to, for example, the

Treasury Board. I think that on that basis I will have to rule the

particular wording of that question out of order. I will entertain a

rewording of the question by the member.

MR. LEVI: I

have a supplementary question to the Premier. As the president of the

council, could he speak to his Minister of Finance in respect to

unfreezing...? The Treasury Board is frozen and we need to get an

answer, presumably through the Premier. He has the power to do this; he

is the president of the council. I would ask the Premier if he will

speak to the Minister of Finance about expediting this matter. Can he

do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not sure that the

statement from the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam is correct, but

certainly I'll speak to the Minister of Finance. I'm not sure that the

preamble to the request to me is in fact correct.

MR. LEVI:

I spoke to the Minister of Education. He tells me it's frozen in

Treasury Board. All I'm asking the Premier to do is to see that it gets

unfrozen. I don't want him to tell me he doesn't know whether it's

fact; it is fact.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I also listened

to the Minister of Education. Perhaps one of the difficulties we have

in this House is that that member has incorrectly quoted the minister

and taken an entirely different

interpretation from the answer than the

rest of us.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH

DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. MACDONALD: I have a

question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since this

Kennedy Heights pub was raised, has the minister made inquiries as to

whether people in his office or people in the liquor control branch,

who have to do with the granting of licences, were in communication

with the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) prior to the hearing of

the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's been such a long

time since those questions were asked, but unless my memory fails me I

believe I took that question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister begun to make such inquiries?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A question taken as notice cannot....

MR. MACDONALD:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a different question. I want to know

whether the minister has commenced to make inquiries into whether or

not there was communication with what would be a very small group of

people. Has he picked up the phone and begun to make those inquiries?

Have you started?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The process of collecting the information has begun.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. At this point in time,

has the minister approached the federal government with a request for

them to allow Cargill to take over Maplewood?

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

MRS. WALLACE:

That's interesting in that he was quoted this morning as having so

indicated. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act makes provision for

the minister to lease the Maplewood Poultry Processing plant in

Abbotsford. My question to the minister is: has he now decided to use

these sweeping new powers to keep the turkey processing going in the

Maplewood plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, with

regard to whether or not I had approached the federal government for

the Cargill purchase to go through, if that's what the member heard,

that was incorrect; I did not make that statement. Secondly, at the

present time, I understand that there is a possibility of a new buyer

for the Maplewood plant, and I hope to have an update on that very

shortly.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I ask leave to go to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 36.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, may I take just a few moments to attempt to answer some of the questions

[ Page 4034 ]

which

were raised before lunch by four of the members opposite. The first

item, which there seemed to be some misunderstanding about, involved

the inclusion of domestics and farmworkers. The fact is that the

legislation does apply to everyone. Yes, there are exemptions by

regulation, and for some very good reasons.

There was one

question asked with respect to reinstatement in the provisions. My

research over lunch indicates to me that this is provided for in the

Canada Labour Code and in one province. The province involved is Nova

Scotia, and that's after ten years.

There was another

question asked with respect to

section 13(5), a proposed amendment. I

think perhaps to clarify the members' concern, if they would make

reference to

section 56, which is the enforcement provision under the

maternity section. If it is read in conjunction with

section 13(5), you

will probably find that that eliminates the confusion which you may

have encountered when reading the amending section.

Another

question came up with respect to bonding. That was one of the matters

we were concerned about — and, of course, the size of the bonding. The

farm-labour contractors will be licensed depending on the size of their

operations. My major concern, of course, was the protection of wages

earned — that they ought to be protected through appropriate bonding.

That bonding is going to be calculated on not less — and I would like

to repeat "not less" — than one week's wages plus the 72-hour period,

which is equivalent to three working days plus holiday pay. When that

is added and multiplied by the number of employees, I think you'll find

that the bonding, which is at the discretion of the director, will

certainly be more than adequate.

Another question by the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) involved temperature requirements. With

all due respect, I think you might make reference to the Factory Act on

that. I'm not being facetious; there is a provision in there for it.

far as the deceived working conditions, you made reference to the old

Employment Agencies Act. I think it was originally

section 10; under

the present legislation it's

section 45. The fact is that there was a

specific provision in that legislation which made reference to strike

and/or lockout. The new section, which is incorporated within the

proposed legislation, has been broadened. The spirit and the intent of

the proposed

section certainly incorporates that particular view. It

covers other things as well, and I think you must take that into

consideration. For example, what would happen where an agency

consistently refers employees to partnerships or corporations who

consistently fail to pay wages? The

section says that an agency will

either not be licensed or the licence would be cancelled where the

agency does not operate in the best interest of the employee or person

seeking employment. There has to be some discretion placed on the

director, and I think that that would probably cover that item.

appreciate the comments about the Land Registry Act. It was a policy

decision, and one that was fundamental. That was the protection of the

existing torrens system. I note that Manitoba has just gone back to

using the system, respecting the sanctity of it. I appreciate the

concerns they have; I also have those concerns. But I might mention

that I am trying to come up with an idea to try to address that

particular problem in another way.

As far as advertising is concerned — the enforcement — it's our proposal

that we do something: something like the Labour Code, some form of advertising.

I think that particular piece of work has been well received. There has certainly

been a large demand for those particular pamphlets. I was hoping to and intend

to do something similar on this one.

There

was another reference to charges of room and board. I appreciate and I

have just read the amendment put forth by the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford). I appreciate that. If my amendment, which is in, is

addressing the same concern.... That is, I didn't want to see the

increase in minimum wage eroded as a result of increase in board and

room, if in fact it was going to be a somewhat arbitrary increase.

One

other item involved the reference to the collective agreements and the

fact that there are so many inconsistencies with collective agreements

right now and the overtime provisions. I think it would be wrong to

intrude by legislation into established agreements. That's why the

exception is made for collective agreements as far as overtime is

concerned. I thought I was clear, but the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) was concerned about that.

I have made it clear on

wages for domestics. The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was

concerned about the bill and wages as far as domestics are concerned.

The minimum wage does apply. Regulations will ensure that it does

apply. The only exemption — and I've mentioned this in advance — will

involve overtime in hours of work. It's a very difficult question to

address, but it has to be.

The last item raised by the

member for Burnaby–Edmonds involved children. The question is, how do

you really address that problem? I think it's difficult. I know she

made reference to the tragedy involving three children. I acknowledge

that, but in this particular case it had nothing to do with conditions

at the workplace, to the best of my knowledge. But I'm advised by the

director that no permit is given unless they are working in a safe

environment, and this is one of the conditions. Also, the matter of

safety and education comes into play. I think it would be impossible to

cover every situation by legislation.

The second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) made reference to the concern which he has

involving pesticides. I might mention to you that I've met with some of

the farmworkers, and there's no doubt that this can be a serious

problem. I really think that the area where it ought to be addressed is

probably through the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. You

were a little concerned — and I am too — about whether it should or

should not apply, and I'm told this is a subject of inquiry at this

time.

I realize that I gave a commitment that this would be

done quickly to proceed with the House business. I would close debate

on this, Mr. Speaker, and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

36, Employment Standards Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

MINES ACT

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

[ Page 4035 ]

section 1.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON:

In the definition of "mine" as amended from the previous act, I see

that the minister has put in a number of changes, but they don't

address the problem that we are referring to. The definition of "mine"

is the narrowest definition possible; it doesn't refer to tailing

dumps, tailing ponds, overflows, and other areas of mines. We would be

opposed to this

section and this amendment because, for example, if

this

section passes unamended a company would not be obliged to file

within their plans the workings outside of the mine-site itself.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Nonsense.

MR. HANSON: It's not nonsense.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on the amendment to

section 1, Hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I'll raise my objections to

section 1 after the amendments are dealt with.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, to just reiterate my comments, in the existing act as

it's presented the present definition of "mine" does not specifically

cover dumps, tailings and their overflows. They should be included in

the full, detailed mining plans. These are clearly parts of the mining

operation — not just the excavating of the ore material and so on. If

there is a claim later on that the mining company is not being

responsible in its clean-up activities, there are no filed plans of all

those tailing ponds and dumps to go with the regular workings of the

mine.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the fact is

that the second member for Victoria is wrong. The development plans

include every part of the mine — that which is on the premises and that

which is off the premises. I can hardly see this as being a narrow

definition. It's the widest possible. It includes everything in

connection with the mine. It even goes farther than that in the

definition of "working place." Not only does it relate to everything —

the underground workings — but it also includes a place designated by

the inspector. If there is something we haven't caught, we can catch it

by the inspector designating it.

In the designation of

"mine," Mr. Chairman, with respect, it has in the past, does now, and

will continue in the future to cover tailing ponds, waste disposal and

everything else that is related to the mine. It always has and it

always will.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, to the minister, in

section 3(

l) it says: "that has

caused personal injury or loss of life." An inspector should have the

power to investigate any occurrence or accident in a mine. It should

not be necessary that it resulted in maiming, personal injury or loss

of life. The words "that has caused personal injury or loss of life"

should be removed. All occurrences in the mine that are potentially

hazardous should be covered.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Again, Mr. Chairman, there is a danger in only reading one

section of a

bill at a time. This only covers accidents which cause injury, but, if

you'll read further, the inspector has wide powers to cause an

investigation at any time that he thinks a dangerous situation is

occurring in the mine. He may make an examination either on his own or

at the request of the safety committee of the union — and in fact at

any other time when there seems to be some problem. So I would suggest

to the member that the chief inspector has that power. This

section

allows him or on the direction of the minister should someone be

injured to immediately make an investigation in that regard. I think if

you'll read the next

section you'll see that there are other powers.

Other sections also allow full investigation, either at the request of

the inspector or by him.

MR. HANSON: I'd just like to

ask the minister why this particular

section appears to be silent on

the publishing of the inspector's findings — making them public in a

report — and the fact that the inquiry is taking place, etc. There

should be some disclosure provisions within this section.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I think you have to understand the nature of this section. This is

something that allows the inspector to move very quickly and

immediately into a situation where someone has been hurt or killed. I

would assume that the chief inspector's responsibilities in other areas

would ensue here as well. You might also understand, Mr. Chairman, that

most of this kind of investigation that used to be in the act is not

now in the act; it's in the Coroners Act. The coroner now has the

responsibility for doing that kind of detailed public reporting that

used to be in the Mines Act. This just allows the chief inspector to go

in and look at a situation regarding safety and get it fixed as quickly

as possible. There are other mechanisms later on in the act which allow

the chief inspector on a much more routine matter, if he thinks there's

a danger to health or safety or that somebody has been injured, to step

in immediately and take such action as is necessary.

MR. D’ARCY:

This

section has changed the powers in the sections of the Inquiry Act,

which gave powers to the inspector. This is going to

section 2 from

sections 12, 15 and 16. Does the inspector still have the personal

discretion to hire staff and disburse funds as he sees fit and as is

needed and to take quick action in an inspection problem? He certainly

had those powers under the old act.

[ Page 4036 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you're talking in terms of the powers of the commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act, yes, he does.

MR. D'ARCY: It's nice to hear the minister say that he does,

but the sections under which he now has the power don't specifically state

that. Is the minister going to say that that's going to be under regulation,

and that he's going to give the inspector those powers? They were spelled

out in the old act; they're not spelled out in the new one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Again, we're dealing with two separate subjects. One of the reasons

that some of the specific designations, which used to be lodged in the

responsibility of the chief inspector, are not made in this act is that

they are now lodged in the responsibility of the coroner under the new

Coroners Act. The coroner now has that responsibility. The coroner is

the senior person responsible for investigating this kind of injury and

accident. We took it out of this act because it was a duplication of

the Coroners Act. The chief inspector, however, still must have the

opportunity and the responsibility for setting those safety standards,

for getting in quickly to see whether or not there is a breach of

safety regulations in regard to an injury or a death, and for having

those breaches corrected as quickly as possible. The actual placing of

blame, if there's blame to be placed.... That kind of investigation is

now within the Coroners Act.

MR. D'ARCY: In my questions I did not mention the essential happening

of somebody being killed or seriously injured. It may well be that an inspector

simply sees an unsafe condition in which nobody has been hurt or injured as

yet — but it is some kind of hazard, perhaps atmospheric, which he wishes to

investigate. My question to the minister is: does he have the power to investigate

that beyond his own person? Maybe he feels he needs to contact expert technical

advice, or perhaps he wants a second opinion. Does he still have those powers

to anticipate a hazardous condition which could cause injury, death, or occupational

disease?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

A person with responsibilities under the Public Service Act always has

the opportunity to contact other people, to call in experts if he needs

that second opinion, and to do whatever is necessary. Again, the same

questions are being asked that were asked by the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

Section 4 gives the chief inspector the clear

responsibility to do everything necessary in order to ensure that the

health and safety of workers is protected on the mine-site.

Look

at subsection (e): "To exercise the powers necessary to carry this act

into effect." I assume that means that he can do whatever is necessary

in order to ensure that those safety regulations are complied with, if

that's what's under investigation.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question to the minister regarding dangerous conditions —

section 5(l)(b). It appears to allow the inspector sweeping powers —

for a one-man inspection. In regard to the last sentence of 5(l)(b) —

safeguarding the public or persons employed in or about the mine —

could the minister clarify exactly what that statement means?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would have to concur that they are wide and

sweeping powers for an inspector, designated by the chief inspector,

who finds a dangerous condition. It's historic in this province that in

many instances in the operation of mines there is no time to be nice.

An inspector must be able to have those kinds of sweeping powers that

you described. If a condition exists which is clearly dangerous, he

must be able to act quickly and with the full force of law in order to

get the operation stopped until the condition is corrected. That's

really what it means, Mr. Member.

MR. HANSON: Again

on the matter of an inspector, and determining that the mine should be

closed because of a health hazard, I'm looking at the financial

guarantees for the workers displaced as a result of the closure. At the

moment it says that the employer shall make his "best endeavours to

provide a worker whose employment has been interrupted as a result of

the order with alternate employment." For the minister's benefit,

that's 5(3). I would prefer to see stronger language — that some

provision and guarantee be given for the worker. My concern is that if

there is not a financial guarantee, there may be a disincentive for the

workers to identify hazardous situations, knowing that they could be

unemployed three days later. They're only guaranteed this, I think,

under

section 5(4): "Where the owner, agent or manager is unable to

provide a worker with alternate employment, he shall pay or cause to be

paid to the worker the basic hourly wage that the worker would have

earned for each day the closure continues up to a maximum of 3 working

days."

Let me outline a scenario for you. In the judgment of

someone working in a mine there is a hazardous situation, which he

brings to the attention of a mines inspector, who then brings that

matter to the attention of the company. There's a closure and the

person is not found alternate employment and is out after three days

while the closure is taking place. What I'm saying is that there may be

a disincentive for employees working in hazardous conditions to bring

to the attention of their safety committee, or the mines inspector,

something that may result in their being unemployed a few days later. I

think that there should be better financial guarantees for workers to

ensure that there are safeguards and good safe working conditions in

these mines.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll take that as

notice and discuss it when we next discuss the regulations and the act

with union and management. I might say that in discussions in my office

with the major unions involved this was not one of the matters they

raised as a point of their concern. But I can see the member's point

and I'll take it under advisement.

[ Page 4037 ]

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question for the minister regarding subsection 5(5)(b). The

statement is made that the inspector, at the expense of the owner, may

cause the company or mine to develop a suitable engineering report

assessing the condition of the mine. Could the minister clarify exactly

what this means? To give an example, up at Surprise Lake with the

Placer Development proposal, what would happen in regard to a problem

with the uranium count, if parts per million or parts per billion...?

What exactly would the inspector do? Would he cause the mining company

to go back into a feasibility study, or would the ministry develop a

feasibility study outside the company's jurisdiction to a certain

extent?

I have one further quick question, Mr. Chairman. Is

there any...? As a suggestion, could the ministry put a public inquiry

aspect in at this stage — in which, to a certain extent, a local public

inquiry could offer suggestions to the inspector regarding dangerous

conditions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I suppose that could

always happen. I think the practice has been that an independent report

has been required. I think that the companies, in many instances, would

sooner — at least in the first instance — have their own engineering

reports done. But it has been the practice of the ministry in the past

— and I expect it will continue — that an outside independent report be

done and filed with the ministry.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. D'ARCY:

Regarding reclamation, it would seem as though, under the old act — and

I mentioned this in second reading and the minister indicated that he

would have something to say on it — there was provision for approval of

reclamation plans by other ministries. It appears now that that is not

there and the minister is simply going to be appointing a reclamation

advisory committee.

Would the other ministries —

particularly, I would think, Agriculture, Forests, the fish and game

branch, and water resources — be contacted and would they have input

into the reclamation plans?

The other point, Mr. Chairman,

is that we wish to know whether there are going to be any appeals from

a decision of the minister on this. There used to be provision for an

appeal to a cabinet committee by any individual or mining company who

objected to a decision of the minister in this regard, and that appears

to be missing. According to my reading of the act, it seems as though

the minister's word is final on this.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are we on

section 7 or 8?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 7.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, I'll answer the question on

section 8, I guess. Perhaps we could

pass 7 and I could talk about 8, because that's what we're talking

about in the reclamation advisory committee. Would that be suitable?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on

section 7. It's

true that the reclamation advisory committee is not mentioned in that, but the

other concern which I expressed, the dropping of any provision for the minister

to consult with or get approval from other affected ministries, is under

section

7. I would like to have the minister explain why those things aren't there

anymore.

Also,

there is the question of the case of appeal to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council being dropped, which means, in effect, a

cabinet committee is no longer there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I think the appeal to the minister can always be made, and there is

always the opportunity for an appeal to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It doesn't necessarily mean that that's

a cabinet committee.

I might say that under the terms of who

is consulted on this, there has always been — and I imagine this has

gone on for as long as the reclamation laws have been in effect — an

informal reclamation advisory committee. It has never been enshrined in

legislation. But the ministry and the other ministries involved carried

out the practice. We felt that it was important, since this is a

multi-discipline area in which we are dealing all of the time, that it

should be enshrined in legislation, and so it's here in this bill today.

There

are a number of ministries which have traditionally been consulted.

Certainly the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing have been in some instances, and I just forget the list of

ministers which have traditionally been on this committee.

is the intention of the government to continue with the same membership

on that committee — the various appointees from the various ministries.

I received the advice in having this bill drafted that it is no longer

government practice to put names of ministries in acts, as a matter of

legislative style, because of the possibility of their names changing,

as they have several times over the last several years. So I accepted

that advice on drafting style, but I can guarantee the member that the

same members who are presently on the informal committee will be on the

legislated committee.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. HANSON:

Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act persons authorized by management

and the union or safety committee were allowed to examine and

cross-examine witnesses at an inquest. Now this particular

section

states "...an inspector or person designated by an inspector shall be

deemed a person whose interests may be affected by evidence adduced at

an inquest." What I'm trying to point out to the minister is that it

would be desirable after the words "designated by an inspector" to add

the following: "and a representative of the local union or safety

committee and of mine management." In other words, it doesn't

necessarily follow that a safety committee member would be allowed or

afforded the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses at an

inquest. That really should be taken into consideration as well. I

haven't an amendment on that, but perhaps the minister would take that

under advisement for discussion, because it may not follow that the

mines inspector would look to the safety committee representative to

cross-examine or examine witnesses by right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the member's contention that opportunities

should be afforded to any of those members who have an interest in the

[ Page 4038 ]

affair.

However, it's my understanding that what's been attempted here is to

ensure that the inspector is entitled to be a party to the inquest

under the Coroners Act. The coroner will decide. You know, if there are

people on the site — a safety committee — I would expect that he'd have

an easier time deciding that they had an interest in the case and

should be heard, and the cross-examination could take place at that

time. He might not have as easy a time accepting that an inspector who

is somewhat removed from the issue should also be heard. We just want

to make sure that the inspector has that opportunity to give evidence

and cross-examine. If for some reason the opportunity is not afforded

to those people you mentioned, I'd certainly take into consideration

the need for changes.

section 11.

MR. PASSARELL:

Concerning cancellation of permits, the minister is probably aware of

the situation up in Centreville last year, in which a miner, Mr. George

Zimick, had his permit revoked because of a complaint from an

individual who had a personal difference with him and lived down the

river from him. My question to the minister regarding cancellation of

permits is: could the minister look into the possibility of having more

inspectors in the north, whereby there'd be more regular on-site visits

so that an individual who has a mining claim and has his permit

cancelled, let's say in June, won't have to wait until August, when the

mining season is almost completed, to see an inspector? Maybe the

minister could offer some suggestions in regard to this problem.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I think we sort of slipped out of this bill a little bit, Mr. Chairman,

but that's okay. This section, of course, only deals with permits which

are issued under the reclamation

section of the act. But, yes, I agree

with the tremendous interest in mining activity. The ministry has

approval for increased staffing and that will take place at the

earliest opportunity. All you have to do is go across the street and

look into our office over there and you'll see it crawling with people

and maps all over the place. There's a tremendous boom and we need more

help.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 19 as amended.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to delete

section 19(2)(a). The

language refers to dust exposure from working in a mine, but the

provisions of the

section do not apply to a person who is normally

required to work less than 20 percent of his working time in any one

month in a dust-exposure occupation, unless it is in an asbestos-mining

operation. My contention is that there is not enough empirical medical

evidence to indicate that a person working less than 20 percent of his

working time in any one month is not subjected to sufficient exposure

to damage his health. I don't know of any justification for that

clause. Why not leave the exposure levels to be established by the

Workers' Compensation Board, as opposed to enshrining in legislation

something that may have no basis in medical fact? So what I'm saying is

that by deleting that 20 percent of working time in a month, that would

allow the medical authorities, through the Workers' Compensation Board

regulations, to determine what would be a hazardous exposure level to

particular individuals in certain work areas. I would encourage the

minister to delete that section.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of respect I would say that the

government can't accept the amendment at this point, but I'd like to

point out what the practice has been in the past and what we expect it

will be in the future in terms of changing both this legislation and

the regulations. There has been, I'm told, a high degree of cooperation

between the industry and the unions in developing this legislation.

I've made a strong commitment to the union in a recent meeting with

them that no changes would be made to this act without their full

cooperation and that they would be fully involved. I've committed that

we will set up a joint management-union-ministry committee immediately,

first of all to deal with the regulations which will be drawn under

this act, and secondly to review the act and its regulations on an

ongoing basis.

I have discussed with the union the 20

percent rule, and their concerns about it are the same concerns the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has. I have promised the union

that once the regulations are finished one of the first issues we'll

deal with is the 20 percent limit, and we will have the opportunity to

hear both the people from the Workers' Compensation Board and the

medical people, have them submit briefs to us so that we can look at

them, and if it can and should be changed we'll change it. I give as a

commitment that it will be done in full cooperation with all of those

involved. However, having given that commitment not only to the union

but to management as well, I would feel reluctant at this point to make

the changes after I've gone over them with both sides.

might add too that in those discussions regarding this section, the

most serious concern that the unions had was not so much the 20 percent

rule but rather that there was nothing in the bill which demanded that

regular, ongoing medical examinations be held. On looking at that, I

felt that was a major deficiency, and that's the reason for the

amendment which the House has just passed. Calling for those ongoing

medical examinations in the regulations in terms of asbestos

operations, those examinations will be at 12-month intervals rather

than at 24-month intervals, but for no dust operations will they be

allowed to go longer than 24 months.

So, Mr. Chairman, at

the same time as saying that the government can't accept this amendment

at this time, because we would like to talk to both sides about it, I

do give the committee a commitment that a joint committee will be set

up immediately, and that will be one of their first tasks.

Amendment negatived.

section 19 as amended.

[ Page 4039 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, under the existing practices in the event

that the worker underground or anywhere in the mining area fails a medical examination

of normal chest pulmonary functions, the practice is that that worker immediately

takes a service job and no longer, hopefully, will be exposed to the atmospheric

conditions which cause this loss of normal chest function and maintains his employment

and can support his family for a long period of time. However, Mr. Chairman,

I don't see any provision for this here in the new bill, and I certainly

would like to see that that practice is carried on by the industry. Where a

miner is unfortunate enough to be exposed to dust as a result of breathing whatever

— usually silicon, since it's one of the most common elements — he should

be able to maintain his employment, if he so wishes, with that particular company

on that particular mine site at a job on the surface, particularly since there

are more and more surface jobs due to a trend towards surface mining in the

province of B.C. Right now it's more or less mandatory; it appears to be

optional here. Responsible companies no doubt will keep people on; the ones

that are less responsible will let people go. I would like to see that written

into the act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm advised by all of the legal advisers we have around here that it is

in the act. In the old act it was not mandatory. It held out that the

employer would offer, the employee would have to accept; however, if

the employee didn't accept the offer, then there was some severance pay

made. I'm told, Mr. Chairman, that this

section is exactly the same;

I've discussed it very thoroughly with the unions, and I've again

guaranteed them that that's what it means — that's what the legal

advisers tell me it means — and that it is no different from the

practice in the past. Again, all I can say is that if that proves to be

incorrect, based on the best legal advice I can get, then I guess it'll

have to be changed to ensure.... But the intention of the government

and the intention of the bill is exactly the same as that which was in

place before.

MR. D'ARCY: I will accept the minister's assurance. However,

we're certainly not just asking for a requirement that an employee take

a job; it's simply that an offer should be made, as it often is made, particularly

in other industries. Offers are made. It's not even necessarily a job that

has a high rate of pay, but a job offer of some sort is made.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

We can fool around with words all we want, but I'm told by the legal

advisers that the present wording of subsection (6) of this

section

does require that employment be offered. And unless it's both offered

and accepted, severance pay is given, which is the same as with the old

act.

MR. HANSON: There are a number of clauses in

section 19 that really fall much short of the mark. Subsection 19(4)

states that if an employer requires an employee to undertake a test by

a medical practitioner.... Now presumably this medical practitioner

would be employed by the company. As the minister knows, in many

instances there are differences of opinion on a medical basis between a

family physician representing an employee and a medical practitioner in

the employ of a company. Sometimes differences arise. It would be far

better to have stated in that language a medical examination by a

physician selected by the employee. I think that would put the onus on

that physician as opposed to the company.

I have an

objection to that clause, but I want to move on. I also have an

objection to 19(6), which refers to the case where an employee has had

a medical examination by a medical practitioner and the medical

practitioner has determined that the employee can no longer work in an

area of high dust exposure; therefore the company is to find alternate

employment. If they are unable to find alternate employment, the

employee is given a four-week cheque and goes down the road. Again,

that may not be a sufficient incentive for the company to have a safe

operation if they have employees working in an area of high dust

exposure and the only penalty to the company is four weeks' pay.

have an amendment that I would wish to move on 19(6), which is this:

after the words "pay him," substitute "26'' for "4". In other words:

"An employee, where the company is unable to find alternate employment

in a dust-free environment, would be paid 26 weeks' pay, as opposed to

4 weeks' pay."

Mr. Chairman, the point we're trying to make

with the minister is that

section 19, as it relates to safety, is

antiquated. It is not language that is accommodating new developments

in medicine, nor is it language accommodating innovations in labour

management relations, safety relations, and so on. We should be

applying maximum pressure in a fair way into a working environment so

that the employer is obliged to have as safe a working environment as

possible. In my view, to have a four-week penalty for a high dust

exposure which has damaged the health of an employee sufficiently that

he or she can no longer work in a dust exposure environment is

certainly inadequate.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The government couldn't accept that. I accept that there are going to

be changes here, as new scientific knowledge is gained, but as I

mentioned earlier, I think that the sensible way to make any changes to

this bill is through full consultation. The amendment that the member

puts forward would be a severe imposition on the employers — 26 weeks'

pay in place of 4 weeks' pay — and I think it wouldn't be incumbent

upon this Legislature to put forward that kind of change without full

consultation from both sides. I would expect that that would be the

kind of matter which the joint committee could deal with for changes

upcoming in future legislative sessions, which if this one keeps going,

won't be that far off.

Amendment negatived.

Section 19 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 4040 ]

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Sections 20 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I notice that the minister has said in the amendment

that he wishes to restrict or prohibit "for a prescribed period of time."

Can the minister give some indication to the House of what he means by a prescribed

period of time. Can he also give some idea to the House and the people of this

province of exactly what he is going to define as a uranium mine or a mine containing

uranium? Perhaps it is also an indication as to whether he is going to keep

for himself discretionary powers to vary those standards from situation to situation,

from place to place, and from region to region within the province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

First of all I'd just like to say that there is no intention on the

part of this government to relax the seven-year moratorium which has

been placed on both exploration and development of mining for uranium

in this province. It is instead the full intent of this legislation,

and the regulations which will follow, to put in place, first of all,

the seven-year moratorium and, secondly, to allow those people who are

presently holding claims on which uranium has been established not to

lose their opportunity for those claims because they don't perform the

work requirements which are normally required under the act. It will

put the ban in place. It will be for a seven-year period, and it will

not be site-specific throughout the province.

This is a bit

unusual, but perhaps it would help the members if, when the committee

rises, I tabled the draft regulations which will accompany these

amendments in this regard. I don't know whether that's been done in the

House in the past or not, but I think it would be extremely helpful for

all members to have the opportunity to read them, understanding that

they are a draft and that they will need to be passed by

order-in-council by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I can, though,

for the purposes of the committee, outline the highlights, which I

think will answer the questions raised by the member for Rossland–Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy).

First of all, under the first amendment, the

first question that was asked dealt with the prescribed period of time.

Draft regulation No. 8 under this

section says, "This regulation is

repealed on February 28, 1987," which puts in place the prescribed

seven-year period. In regard to the area which will be prescribed as a

reserve to prohibit both exploration and development of uranium,

section 2 of the draft regulations makes the entire province of British

Columbia a reserve under this act — and a placer-mining reserve in

respect of the mineral uranium — so that you in fact have the

seven-year moratorium in place and you have the entire province covered

by the reserve. Under the terms of these amendments, the regulations

will go on to say, "No person shall explore for, develop, mine or

produce any mineral for its uranium content on the reserve created,"

which I've said is the entire province of British Columbia.

With

regard to the threshold levels for uranium — and those have been in

place for some time — it's my understanding that they were first put in

place as a result of the interim report of the Bates commission. During

the course of exploring for a mineral, if mineral ore is encountered

which has uranium in a quantity exceeding 0.5 kilograms of uranium for

every ton of mineral ore in place, no person shall explore for any

mineral on the property where the uranium at those threshold levels has

been encountered. Further, the person who encounters those threshold

levels will be required to report that fact in writing to the chief

inspector within seven days, and that will, in fact, place that

property under the reserve which has been placed on the province.

The

regulations will further say that in the course of producing another

mineral from a proven mineral ore body, which contains more than 0.01

percent uranium by weight, the owner or whoever is involved with the

mine shall order all production at that mine to cease and, within seven

days, inform the chief inspector that uranium above those threshold

levels has been discovered.

There will be other regulations,

regarding the matter that I raised first, which will allow the easing

of the work requirements for those people who want to hold onto those

properties in the hope, perhaps, that some other government will ease

the moratorium after the seven years. Those I have promised from the

first time the moratorium was announced.

There will then be

two threshold levels — the first in the discovery and the second in the

operation of a working mine. Other than that, there will be no

allowance.

Perhaps the only other thing that seems to have

been a controversial

section under this amendment — and I think it

would be cleared up by the draft regulations — is that the inspector

would have the opportunity to open, under certain conditions, further

exploration or development on a mine site. The regulations will insist

that if there is uranium in that amount, it cannot be touched. All

that's required is that.... There may be a very large mining property

and they may be able to move half a mile away and find an area which

has an ore with no uranium content in it on the same property. At that

point, the inspector would have the opportunity to say, "Look, move

from where you are at the present time and start your mining operation

where there is no threshold level of uranium," and he would have the

opportunity to allow that.

It's very clear that the uranium

moratorium will be set in place by the regulations, which will be

passed immediately following the passage of these amendments. The seven

years is set in place and the ban is set in place. The entire province

of British Columbia becomes a reserve on which no uranium mining or

exploration can be allowed.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to thank the minister for his rather quantitative

explanation, except that it didn't really answer the questions. For instance,

I would have to ask the minister again: if he wants us to take him in good faith

— that what

[ Page 4041 ]

he's

saying is all going to be true — why can't he be up front about it in

the House and put the changes and regulations that he's talking about

in here in the amendments? The fact remains that the minister or

another minister or another government can make changes to these

regulations at whim. I must agree that in a parliamentary system the

government has the power to make changes whenever they want to; but at

least they have to be public about it if the changes have to be made in

this chamber, and at least it's before the press gallery and people can

see it. The fact is that the minister and cabinet can make changes to

regulations at any time. If the minister is as sincere as he would have

us believe about these regulations which he says he's going to put into

place, I can't understand why he doesn't put them on the record in this

House.

Another question I have is: what form of independent public scrutiny is there

going to be into whether any radioactivity levels which the minister may prescribe

are not going to be exceeded either in the exploration of an ore body or in

the development and mining of various ore properties? I would agree with the

minister that the levels can vary from point to point in a particular property:

you have hot spots and you have cold spots. You also have uranium involved with

a great many other minerals and ores. Is there any independent public scrutiny

of what the mine developer and mine owner are going to be reporting to the inspector?

We all know, for instance, that your civil servants out there in the field are

spread pretty thin, They do a good job, I think, but they're spread pretty

thin. One or two people will cover an entire segment of the province. How do

we know that there's going to be any independent public scrutiny? How do

we know that the levels are going to be maintained?

Also,

the minister did not indicate what the penalty might be for somebody

who breaks the regulations. Is it going to be under the

summary

convictions act? Is he going to get a slap on the wrist? As the

minister may recall — if he read the paper and talked to his

predecessor, the member for Boundary–Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

when he was minister — one of the major problems people had in my

constituency, particularly in the Genelle area, a year or so ago was

that it seemed as though people could break the provincial and federal

law at will. Even when the inspection people agreed that the law and

regulations had been broken, they said: "Well, that's too bad. We told

them not to do it again, to stop." One of the great frustrations of the

general public was that when the law and the regulations as they were

then were broken many times on many different issues — and this was

accepted in a court case that followed — there really was no penalty.

There was really no way of restricting these activities, even though

there may have been a slap on the wrist for the people involved.

Can

the minister assure the public of B.C. and this chamber that there is

going to be some action in the event that somebody does deliberately

break one or more of the regulations surrounding uranium, which the

minister is going to put in place, or, quite frankly, regulations which

have been in place for years and which sound pretty good on the

surface, but which in fact don't mean very much if people can break the

law and get away with it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just

on the question of the regulations, I think the intention of the

government is pretty clear. I've taken what I consider to be a rather

unusual move by offering to table these draft regulations for the

House's scrutiny.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sure you'll have lots to say if they're changed before they get made into regulations.

Mr.

Chairman, I think that's

an act of some faith on the part of the

government. I'll give you my guarantee right here, and now that they

will be put forward and that they will contain those requirements which

I've said they'll contain.

It's true that if there were an

election tomorrow and the NDP suddenly became government again, the

member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is such a supporter of

uranium mining in British Columbia, would probably want to change these

regulations right away, but I can tell you that this government won't.

Any government can do anything it wants. You can put a 50-year

moratorium on today, and a government could come along tomorrow and

change it. You've got to take some things on some kind of faith.

I'm

telling you, Mr. Chairman, that these regulations will be put forward,

they will put the ban in place and the ban will cover the entire

province. You have my word on that. If you don't accept my word, then

that's okay with me.

In regard to the policing of this act

once it's in place, I don't know who your public scrutineer would be. I

certainly consider the officials of my ministry to be independent.

They're certainly independent of the mines and the mine owners. I agree

that they've done a good job. As I said to the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), I also agree that they're short-staffed and need some help.

I don't expect that this will be a difficult act to manage. It will be

managed by the chief inspector, just as all of the regulations within

this act are at the present time. I think you'd agree that, over the

years, the chief inspector has done a pretty good job of ensuring that

these regulations are lived up to.

As for the problem of

penalties, there won't be a slap on the wrist. If you had read all the

sections of the bill you would have seen, under "offences and

penalties," that pretty heavy penalties are involved for anybody who

breaches these regulations. Anyone who contravenes this act or an order

made under this act. which includes the regulations, is liable to a

fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one

year, or to both. Further we have added more muscle to that penalties

section by saying that once a written notice of any contravention of

the act has been made and the contravention continues, then the owner

is further liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and not less than

$500 for every day during which the offence continues. That's a

section

that was not in the act before, and I believe it brings some measure of

responsibility to those who would contravene not only this

section of

the act but any other section.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, what the minister doesn't seem to

understand about this is that in something as sensitive to the public as the

question of radioactivity — in the air, in the water, in the ground around them

— enforcement of standards not only must be fair and adequate, as the minister

assures us it's going to be, but must appear to be fair. What I'm suggesting

is that if the minister really understood what is and has been concerning many

people in B.C. about the question of radioactive deposits in the ground, he

not only would have the faith that he has in the people in his ministry — faith

that I share — but would be quite prepared to welcome testing of radioactive

levels by officials from the medical health office in the particular region

if a question

[ Page 4042 ]

comes

up, just to establish that for the purposes of public opinion in the

area the levels are what the inspectors say they are. I have no doubt

that the MHO people would prove the Mines people correct; the point is

that there needs to be that second professional opinion from someone

who lives in the area and has professional qualifications in the health

field. I think that is something this minister and the government don't

understand.

I'm still concerned about the minister not

answering the simple question that I put: if he is so sincere in

wanting everybody in this chamber and outside of it to take him at his

word, why does he have to put those things under regulation that can be

changed at the whim of himself or any other minister or any other

government, when he could just as easily put them in the act in front

of us today and have us all vote on them? If he or some other minister

or some other government wanted to change those, they should have to

come back into this chamber and make those changes and be on the

record. That's what we would like to see. The minister hasn't explained

to us why he and his government are not prepared to go that route.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The answer is simply that these are the kinds of regulations that are

generally dealt with by regulation, and this government intends to

continue to deal with them by regulation. It will put the moratorium in

place, and it will be in place for seven years — that's what this group

should be concerned about today.

Speaking of people who

don't understand, that member doesn't understand the situation at all.

That party on the other side was government for three years. Did they

do anything about radioactive ore? Did they do anything about

exploration for uranium? Did they do anything about the development of

mining for uranium? Not a thing. They sat here for three years and

never did a thing about the thing they say they're so concerned about

today. The member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stood in this House

and urged this House to get on with uranium mining so we wouldn't have

to dam any more rivers — Nic the Nuke from Creston, or wherever he's

from....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask that parliamentary traditions be....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is "Nic the Nuke" on your list?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now, hon. member. I would ask the member to withdraw.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw that. But if you talk about understanding,

this government came to grips with what is a very serious problem and

has placed a seven-year moratorium on the exploration and development

of uranium in this province. It's the first government that's had the

guts to stand up to such a serious social issue. I'm proud to be part

of the government that did this and is going to continue to do it.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have three short questions to the minister regarding this section.

Firstly, can the minister confirm that the development of Placer moly

mine at Atlin is consistent with the government's moratorium on uranium

mining? Secondly, can the minister state how many parts per million of

uranium in an ore body are significant to the moratorium? You were

mentioning fractions and percentages and tonnage. Presently some of the

ore bodies in the Placer development are above 20 parts per million.

Thirdly, can the minister confirm that the development of Amax moly

mine at Kitsault is consistent with the government's moratorium on

uranium, specifically when Amax will be dumping 100 million tons of

radioactive mine tailings into Alice Arm? I hope the minister can give

me a response to those three short questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I can't convert those percentages into parts per million at this time

for the member, but I will undertake to do that for him and give him a

written answer if he wishes. I can say that it's my understanding that

the moly mine in Atlin does fall under the guidelines and will be

allowed in that regard. As far as I know, there's no indication at this

time that the Kitsault mine will achieve something more than the

threshold levels. If they did, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to

continue. The matter of the tailings disposal, I understand, is

currently before the federal Fisheries. An order-in-council has

recently been passed by federal Fisheries, approving that disposal

method at that mine. That was in conjunction with working with our

Ministry of Environment. However, I understand that federal Fisheries

is still looking at that with the possibility of perhaps taking a

second look at it. I'm not privy to what federal Fisheries either does

or might not do in this case, although I'm told that there is a sort of

a one-window approach to this where they approach the thing with our

Ministry of Environment in full cooperation in this regard. It's my

understanding that that's where that is at the present time.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm having difficulty in accepting the minister's assurance that the

regulations he read into the record today are going to be passed at any

time. In fact the minister didn't give the assurance that the

regulations would be passed. As I understand it, he only said that he

would take them to cabinet in their present form, and then it's "hope

for the best."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said I'd pass them. They would be passed immediately following the passage of these amendments.

MR. SKELLY: Does the minister pass regulations, or does cabinet pass regulations?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The Premier of this government and all the members of this government

have made themselves extremely clear on the matter of uranium mining

and exploration in this province. It will not be allowed for seven

years. I have no fear, with the Premier sitting here, that cabinet will

pass these regulations so that it will not be allowed for seven years.

MR. SKELLY: I still cannot accept the minister's guarantee that those are going to be passed by cabinet or by anyone else, for that matter.

HON. MR. FRASER: Suspicious socialist.

MR. SKELLY: Of course I'm suspicious — and harking back to a quotation by Thomas Jefferson, who said that the

[ Page 4043 ]

duty

of every citizen in a democracy is to be suspicious of government. I

support Thomas Jefferson. There are hundreds of years of history in

both the United States and Canada that indicate to me that I should

support Thomas Jefferson on that issue of being suspicious about the

promises of government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He didn't even know this government.

MR. SKELLY:

When he made this statement in the first place, I think he was thinking

about the possibility of a government such as this one coming into

office. When I look back at throne speeches that promised bills of

rights for the province of British Columbia, comprehensive

expropriation statutes for the province, significant environmental

legislation for the province of B.C.... Every one was a wasted, empty

Social Credit promise. Why should we accept anything made as a

guarantee and undertaken as a promise on the part of that minister when

they've delivered so little in the past? Why? What we would expect and

hope for in this uranium mining situation is a rule of law in this

province to govern uranium — not discretion on the part of minister or

cabinet, but a rule of law that governs the mining of uranium in the

province of British Columbia; not something that can be promised in a

Legislature, passed in the form of regulation and a week later repealed

behind the curtain of cabinet. That's not something we were expecting,

and that's not something that the citizens of this province, who are so

concerned about the mining of uranium, are expecting of.... They may be

expecting it of this government, but they certainly aren't expecting

something of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia that can be

passed in the form of regulation and changed the following week to do

away with the seven-year moratorium.

With all due respect,

we simply cannot accept the Premier's promise that during his lifetime

they're not going to have any uranium mining in the province of B.C.

With all due respect, and accepting the word of the member in the

House, we do not believe that those promises are sufficient for the

people of this province who want to have a moratorium on uranium mining

in place and legally enshrined in this province. Furthermore, we feel

that this

section has absolutely no effect whatsoever, if you can pass

the regulations and then turn over and give the chief mines inspector

the right to repeal them the day after cabinet passes the regulations.

It says that any regulation made pursuant to that section,

notwithstanding the chief inspector of mines, can allow the

recommencement of exploration and development. It doesn't say at a

different location or a different site or for different minerals; it

says the recommencement of exploration and development, as if the

regulations hadn't been passed in the first place. It says a mine that

has been closed can be reopened on the word of the chief inspector of

mines.

What kind of a moratorium is it where cabinet passes

a moratorium and then gives a servant of cabinet, a servant of the

government, the right to repeal it? I don't think it would stand up in

court for a minute and it certainly doesn't stand up with the public of

this province — the same way as we passed the budget for the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and now he's cut it all to ribbons in

the constituencies of some members. Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot

accept the word of the government that this moratorium will stand,

unless that word of the government is enshrined in legislation that can

be debated in the Legislative Assembly and the terms are clearly

spelled out of the final ban on uranium mining for seven years and that

the only time it can be lifted is when it's brought to full public

debate in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let this moment pass, when the minister has

given the assurance that not only will the strong stand taken by the

government be dealt by with this legislation, but it will be by

regulation.

I don't blame the member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) for being somewhat cynical on political stances regarding

uranium mining. He was a member of a government that did nothing. He

was a strong member of a government — not strong enough to get into

cabinet, but strong enough to be a part of it — that allowed and even

signed an exploration permit specifically to do with uranium mining.

But

that's not the only significant matter. What is significant is that the

only New Democratic Party government in Canada is in Saskatchewan,

where uranium mining has been unleashed — not just exploration, but

mining. For that member to stand up and to speak in such a way, to try

and run from their own record as government and to try and run from the

record of their party as the government of Saskatchewan is just a

little bit cynical and a little bit hard to take — and it's not just

hard to take for me.

The member says he represents and is in

tune with the feelings of the people of his province. Well, I come from

an area in which a lot of that exploration was taking place, and I

talked to a lot of young people; specifically I can think of six whom I

met around the province as individuals, not as a group. It just so

happens that four of them had lived in Saskatchewan, had been members

of the New Democratic Party, had opposed their party there and oppose

their party here for the wishy-washy attitude it had as government.

They've become disillusioned with members such as the member for

Alberni, who is very brave and bold in opposition, fighting for every

cause, but was a marshmallow when he was in government and when it came

to taking any strong stand on anything. He didn't even have the courage

to contradict his own colleague, the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), who made a speech advocating no more hydro development, but

wanted nuclear development in this province — something that is

unacceptable. He has not had the courage yet, Mr. Chairman, and I

believe....

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I cannot see how the Premier's

remarks are relevant at all, let alone strictly relevant to the amendment before

us here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland–Trail raises a valid point of order. We must relate our comments to the specific amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I believe that it would be valid if you had not allowed these very same

areas to be touched when they were speaking to this section. Mr.

Chairman, I could not sit in my place and allow them to get away with

bafflegab that is totally untrue, and their totally inconsistent

position. I want to say that this Minister of Energy has taken a strong

stand on this issue. He's brought in legislation; he's promised

regulation — something they didn't do either when they were government

in British Columbia and are not doing as government in Saskatchewan. I

would remind the people of this Legislature and this province that the

best guarantee is

[ Page 4044 ]

government that means what it says, because if we were to have the

Blakeney government elected in British Columbia, they could wipe out

the legislation with their huge, awesome majority, if they were given

such a chance. We saw that New Democratic Party as government try to go

against legal contracts, such as they did with the PNE. Legislation and

contracts mean nothing to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If they ever got a chance as government, Mr. Chairman, they would destroy all the good legislation to protect the people.

Now

I want to support the minister. I only really rose to say that I wanted

to give the assurance that the minister gave that the Premier and the

cabinet support his regulations.

MR. SKELLY:

Notwithstanding the Premier's red herring, Mr. Chairman, and the fact

that he's now left the assembly after blowing his campaign speech, I

would like to get back to the issue here. I think the reason the

Premier stood up in this debate is to let the Minister of Mines know

that he's under instructions to get this

section passed, and passed in

the form that it's been presented, because that Social Credit Party, in

spite of their statements that they keep their promises and that they

are the government of no uranium mining.... Ninety percent of the

promises made by this government — even in throne speeches, even in the

plan that's laid out in advance of every session of the Legislature in

which the government promises to do what is laid out in that throne

speech.... They haven't fulfilled the terms of half of those promises.

HON. MR. FRASER: Read this morning's Province .

MR. SKELLY: I've read the other Social Credit newsletter.

Mr.

Chairman, the reason we cannot support a uranium mining ban that isn't

written in terms of legislation — not in regulation, but in terms of

legislation which can be debated right here in the Legislative Assembly

of B.C. — is because we cannot trust a government to keep its promises,

especially if that government may change. The minister may change. And

once he's changed, we've found out in question period that his

assurances don't stand; not even his recollections will stand, Mr.

Chairman. So we have to have something.... As democrats and believers

in the Jeffersonian system of democracy, citizens should not believe

the assurances of government. When a government comes and says "trust

me," you should ignore it and demand legislation that protects the

citizens. That's what we're asking for in this case. As far as we are

concerned, this amendment to this act doesn't provide citizens of this

province the assurance that they will be protected by a uranium mining

moratorium, especially when the chief inspector of mines has the right

to lift that moratorium after the government has announced it.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I think the message is filtering down in the community

that the force and effect of this bill is actually no stronger than a

Thursday morning cabinet meeting. That is clear. It has been clear from

the statements from this side of the House.

But what I'd

like to direct my attention to is a remark made by the minister

regarding the proportion of radioactive materials that are going to be

allowed, because clearly what is happening is that there is going to be

the mining of radioactive materials. There is going to be the mining of

uranium. It is a matter of proportion in its relationship to the other

minerals, as stated by the minister.

The minister pointed

out that 0.5 of a kilogram per tonne would be allowed, and 0.5 of a

kilogram is roughly a pound per tonne. The member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) has pointed out on a number of occasions that 100 million

tonnes of tailings over the next 15 years are going to be dumped in

Alice Arm — that's tailings. When you mine ore and you have that

quantity of tailings, you're going to have a lot of radioactive waste

material. Where is that radioactive waste material going to go? It is

going to go into the ocean, or perhaps into landfills. My question to

the minister is this. As you dismantled the royal commission that was

looking into tolerance levels and other technical aspects of uranium

mining, how have you now determined that 0.5 of a kilogram is an

acceptable level of uranium to have left over, after you take out the

molybdenum or whatever ore is the case? Can you tell me what you are

basing your judgment on?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Chairman, I'd be happy to answer that question. First of all, the

commission has not been dismantled. The commission is preparing its

final reports based on mountains of evidence which was given at public

hearings all over this province and achieved in other places. I expect

that that report will probably be delivered on time somewhere near the

end of October. It will be a public report at that time. For the member

to say that the commission has been dismantled is completely false and

not according to the facts. Mr. Chairman, I can also say that the

threshold levels that I've mentioned will be in place are the same

threshold levels that have been in place ever since the interim report

of the Bates commission, which recommended those threshold levels.

MRS. WALLACE:

I just want to deal with the second part of this amendment, which has

been addressed very briefly by my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly).

I think it's a very significant part of this amendment that we are

setting up here a procedure whereby a cabinet regulation or order can

be overridden by a civil servant. To me, this harks of shades of the

heroin act, because I'm not at all sure that this is a legal piece of

legislation. You know, you just don't do a thing like that. I doubt if

it would stand up in court. Why in the world...? We're pretending that

we're going to do something about this and engrave it in stone, as it

were, in some kind of regulation. We have all these promises that this

is going to happen, yet there is nothing in the act to say that it

will. Then, on top of that, we have this thing in the act that says

that whatever happens the chief inspector can simply overturn it. It

doesn't make any kind of sense in the first place and I very much doubt

that it would stand the scrutiny of the courts. It's the heroin act

repeated.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In response to that, I

can only say that I've explained that to the Legislature. If it happens

that I'm in legal trouble again, I'll try not to hire that member for

my lawyer.

MR. D’ARCY: I'll try one more time, Mr.

Chairman. Things were rather curious a few minutes ago. In one breath —

and I mean quite literally in one breath — he stated this had never

been done before, and in the next breath he said: " Well, it's going to

be in regulation because we always do it

[ Page 4045 ]

that

way." I simply can't understand how you can always do something a

certain way when it's never been done before. How can the minister say

both those statements in the same sentence and still be credible to

himself? The fact is that the minister, through all the bombast which

he has given us in answer to what I think is a simple question.... Why

can't he be upfront about this and put what he's saying in the

legislation? In spite of all the bombast that he and the Premier have

produced, they have not answered a simple question as to why they

simply can't put the moratorium, the length of time, and the

regulations around it into the legislation here so that it can be voted

on by this chamber and any changes that may be made in the future can

be voted on by this chamber before the public of British Columbia. He

has not answered any of those questions.

I'm not going to

filibuster this thing anymore, but I just can't understand why he

cannot make an attempt to give a reasonable and rational statement to

this Legislature on those points.

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

section 38.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 48 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the title pass?

MR. D'ARCY: I call a division, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 39, Mines Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'm very pleased today to be able to move second reading of this act

which is before the House and which has seen a great deal of input from

the community. This is the revision and complete change of the

Protection of Children Act which has been the subject of a White Paper

which circulated throughout the province and which was given input by

many community organizations. We received over 1,200 submissions, as a

matter of fact, both written and verbal. We felt the response from the

community was truly overwhelming.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

believe the act represents a significant change in the approach which

takes into account the changing attitudes that we have seen in society

towards children and families. Our ministry's thrust has been focused

on services to families, and for the first time the services to

families and children in recent years have been reflected in this bill

so that we do not treat the child separately and in isolation from the

family. The bill departs from the traditional approach of treating the

state and parents as adversaries. In the process of protecting children

this adversary role is modified and makes provision for the state and

parents to work together to improve the family unit. It certainly does,

in all ways, reinforce the role of the family in our society. It

recognizes the child's sense of time. I know that we'll get to all of

these items in detail in the committee stage, but I do feel that it's

important to note that it does recognize the child's sense of time, and

that there are time restrictions which allow for permanent life plans

for children who through circumstances cannot stay with their natural

parents and become children who have to have an alternate life.

The

safety and well-being of children continues to be paramount in the new

legislation, and that underlies everything that we're doing in this

act. It is clearly supportive of the integrity of the family, and it

spells out the limits of state intervention in family life.

There

have been statements regarding the act by many people and I'd like to

pay tribute to some of them. We have had statements from many

organizations in the province.

[ Page 4046 ]

Most

statements have been highly complimentary. Some have said they would

have liked some changes here or there. We have looked at all of those

submissions and we have looked at them well. We think that the act we

have here is one that truly meets the child's needs and right to

protection from abuse and neglect. It also clarifies the duty of every

citizen who reports child neglect and that they have a duty to report.

have within the act, not spelled out — and I would like to suggest to

the members opposite, because one of our members has a private member's

bill which addresses the rights of children.... I really would like to

point out that we feel that the rights of children are very well

spelled out in terms of protection, which is really what we wanted to

do through this act. We haven't attempted in any way to duplicate other

acts or to duplicate those areas of legislation which are already on

the statutes.

It sets out the specific considerations to be

followed when a child is in the care of the state. It acknowledges the

rights of parents, except in cases where they have forfeited those

rights by reason of neglect or abuse of their children. Even then, the

act provides for due court process in the termination of parental

guardianship.

I would just like to say that this act

addresses our responsibility for the safety and well-being of children.

It recognizes the family's primary responsibility for meeting the needs

of children. It defines the role of the state in support of the family

in a variety of ways.

At this point in time I would like to quote Justice Berger. In an

article in The Social Worker in the spring of 1979 he had this to say about the rights of children:

"It is, of course, primarily the responsibility of the family,

of the parents, to provide for children's needs. The function of governmental

institutions and agencies is to supplement the family in meeting these needs

whenever the family is either temporarily or permanently unable to provide them."

As all in this House would know, Justice Berger is well known for his work

in family and children's law in the province.

"The

notion is gathering support that children have rights under the law.

You can spell out the rights of children to your heart's content, yet

to a certain extent they cannot be effectively guaranteed by

legislation or effectively enforced by anyone. The law can offer a

substantial measure of protection to the family and to children by the

guarantees of due process that are being developed for the child and

his parents in child welfare cases, but the law cannot guarantee the

delivery of services to a whole category of children."

Mr.

Speaker, the bill we have before us is, I feel, a very great

improvement on the act which our ministry has had to deal with for some

years now. The issue of children's rights deserves better than a

blanket statement of unenforceable principles set out as legislation.

But children's rights are implied in terms of their protection.

Children's rights in terms of their care and services are implied in

other acts in this House. In this legislation we have made no attempt

to duplicate other bills. We have tried to do it in very clear language

so it will be a very good working document for the ministry staff.

I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading of Bill 45.

MS. BROWN:

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there were 1,500 submissions, or maybe

even more, dealing with laws affecting children and services to

children and families in this province. It is true that there was a lot

of public input, and it probably is true that there was an intention to

draft

an act which took into consideration some of the recommendations

included in those submissions. I believe that after a year's work, the

person who spearheaded that did, in fact, draft such

an act. Reading

the draft of that act, certainly one was led to hope that the final

legislation which hit the floor of this House would indeed incorporate

services to all children and families in this province. But that is not

the case.

What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a piece of

legislation which simply amends the Protection of Children Act. It

calls itself

an act dealing with the family and children, and that is

the last time that the word "family" is found anywhere in the act. It

very clearly is

an act that is not committed to the family at all.

The

minister in her press release led us to believe that it had to do with

strengthening the fabric of the family, but it, in fact, concentrates

on the destruction and disintegration of the family. It does not deal

with all of the children of the province, only children in crisis,

children in need, and children who need to be taken into protection.

One would have hoped that a piece of legislation of this nature would

have been allencompassing, that it would have dealt with matters that

would enhance the lives of children in the province and, indeed,

strengthen the fabric of families in this province. It's possible that

the minister, in putting together the final draft, did not have the

benefit of any of those 1,500 briefs, because there is no indication

whatsoever in this act that any of the recommendations which were

presented in any of those 1,500 briefs were incorporated in this piece

of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there have been millions of

words written about the changing role of the family in society, and

certainly about the changing attitude and laws of society towards the

family. We agree that it's changing, and we agree that it certainly is

in need of strengthening.

One of the things I'd like to quote from today is "Protection of Children Under the Law," an extract from a book entitled All Our Children

by Kenneth Keniston. He points out, after going through a historical

discussion of the ways in which family life has changed, that few, if

any, jurisdictions have taken a comprehensive look at all of the legal

and other principles affecting children to see if they make sense in

terms of our current knowledge, experience and norms for families and

children, and to enact an integrated comprehensive children's code. He

goes on to say: "This should be a high-priority work for legislators,

lawyers, parents, child advocates, people who work with children, and

other interested groups throughout our nation." He also says that we do

not look to legal reform in children's rights as a primary source of a

better life for children and families, but we do see it as a necessary

foundation for determining the inevitable disputes that will arise in

any set of relationships as complex as that of the child, the family

and the state.

I must confess that, having read the draft of

the legislation, I was impressed with the draft and anticipated that

the final legislation — when we saw it — would in fact deal with that

complicated relationship between the child, the parent and the state,

and would lay down the guidelines and the foundation on which to ensure

the rights of children in this

[ Page 4047 ]

province, and certainly ensure the strengthening of the fabric of the family.

This

has not happened, Mr. Speaker, in this piece of legislation. The

legislation has not dealt with such things as the right of the child to

remain in the child's home. In fact, four principles of reform need to

be incorporated in any law. One is that before any child is removed

from his or her home for anything but the briefest emergency period,

say, 72 hours, there must be a clear and convincing showing in due

process hearings, where the child as well as the parents has counsel.

That kind of positive commitment on the part of the government

certainly should have been incorporated into this legislation. That's

genuine protection — protection of the child as well as protection of

the family. There is nothing in this legislation that in a positive

kind of way guarantees, or even makes a commitment to, that kind of

protection.

He goes on to suggest that there must be a

strong presumption in favour of children remaining in their natural

home or with relatives before a court removes a child from his or her

nuclear or extended family. "It must be satisfied that no reasonable

strategy of family crisis intervention can save the integrity of the

home as a decent environment in which to bring up a child." That has to

be satisfied first, and that kind of commitment should have been

incorporated into this piece of legislation. In fact, it was

incorporated in the original draft legislation that somehow disappeared

before that draft became the final act itself.

It goes on to

talk about the rights of children. Nowhere in this legislation is there

any mention of the rights of children as persons in our society. It's

not good enough just to say that one cannot legislate love, caring and

nurturing, and those kinds of emotions. There are other kinds of

guarantees that can be enshrined in legislation to ensure that children

have their basic needs met — their basic needs of health care,

education, shelter, nutrition. What those basic needs mean is that the

government is establishing some kind of responsibility towards the

children of this province. That is lacking in this legislation. In

fact, any kind of responsibility for supplying any kind of enhancing

services is lacking in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

The

whole concept of the right of the child to have an advocate — of every

child in this province to have an advocate to speak on its behalf —

should have been enshrined in legislation as all-encompassing as a

family and children's services bill. I'm quoting now:

"The question is asked that laws and legal rights do not

enforce themselves. The history of the juvenile court, designed as a benign,

non-adversary forum to determine the best interest of the child, teaches the

lesson that children need their own independent and skilled advocate to state

their case if they're not to be exploited."

need that kind of commitment on the part of government to ensure that

not just children in need of protection, not just the apprehended

child, not just a child coming into custody, but every child in British

Columbia should have this skilled and independent advocate. That should

have been enshrined in this piece of legislation. It was enshrined in

their original draft, and why it disappeared before it became part of

the final act, Mr. Speaker, no one will ever know.

Times are

changing; our society is changing. There are all kinds of hazards

existing now, which we were not even aware of when the original

Protection of Children Act was drafted. One of the things is the whole

business of safety and health in terms of children. Those kinds of

things have to be incorporated in legislation. We have to incorporate

that when children are damaged as a result of the absence of

occupational health and safety standards in terms of their parents'

employment, they be protected too. That is a new concept that certainly

is part of the evolution of recognizing the damage that can be done,

even to unborn children, from the fact that their parents may have been

exposed to things like lead and other pollutants. That kind of

protection for those children has to be written into the law, but not

even that has been taken into account.

The statistics show

that again.... I'll use lead as an example of a toxic industrial

substance. Lead has harmful effects on reproduction and in some

instances has been taken into account in terms of setting exposure

standards. Nonetheless, we have children who are damaged as a result of

the occupational hazard that their parents are exposed to in the

workplace. There is no way in law that the rights of those children can

be protected, or there is no advocate in terms of insisting that

regulatory laws and policies and watchdog agencies take into account

their rights too. There is no children's compensation law, for example,

patterned after the Workers Compensation Act; there are no special

childrens' addenda attached to environmental impact studies and

environmental impact decisions. We should be insisting on those kinds

of things, because we are living in a world that's increasingly

reaching levels of pollution. We're not ignoring that on behalf of

adults: why are we ignoring it on behalf of children? But that is just

one way in which this act has failed to deal with the rights of

children in the sense of the twentieth century or even the twenty-first

century, which we are living in now.

Mr. Speaker. the act,

as I said before, mentions the word "family" in the title, and the word

family is never mentioned again. For all intents and purposes, as far

as this act is concerned, that's the end of the family. The act does

not deal with the important question of the role of the superintendent.

The draft legislation dealt with the role of the guardian of the child

— to operate as an advocate, not just on behalf, as I said, of children

in need but on behalf of all children in the province. It doesn't deal

with the right of the child to have an opinion of its own. When one is

dealing with children over a certain age and decisions are being made

affecting their lives, they should be heard too. They should have a say

and should be able to participate in the decisions which are being made

affecting their lives. At least they should have the right to be heard.

The act does not take that into account.

As I mentioned

earlier, there are no commitments to the development of family and

support services. There is no commitment even to the inclusion of

community groups or community resources, or to encouraging the

development of them, the building of them, the expansion of them, or

even initiating them on behalf of children. In terms of the positive

things that should be done on behalf of the children of British

Columbia, positive statements on their behalf, and positive commitments

by the government on their behalf, that is not incorporated in the act.

The

act simply deals with amending the old Protection of Children Act,

which deals, Mr. Speaker, as you may know, with children who have to

come into custody, children who are being apprehended, and children who

are being taken into care. But a family and children services act has

to address

[ Page 4048 ]

itself

to all of the children of the province and not just those particular

children. That is a major weakness of this act. It concentrates

entirely on children in need of protection and ignores completely any

of the other children in the province.

The act makes a token

gesture in the direction of native Indian children — and I will deal

with that particular instance in more detail later.

As I

mentioned earlier, there are a couple of basic things that the act

could have dealt with. The act had it within its power to eliminate —

wipe out once and for all — the legal impediments suffered by children

born out of wedlock. No other province, as far as I know, hangs on to

the concept of illegitimacy anymore. The original draft legislation,

which I will be referring to again from time to time, did that. It

actually eliminated the concept of illegitimacy. It said that for the

purposes of services to children, whether or not the parents of a child

were married to each other was of no import and was not to be taken

into consideration. Yet that has disappeared from the act itself.

One

is left to decide that there is one set of rules for legitimate

children in this province and a completely different set of rules for

illegitimate children. This is not a new debate or concept. It is not

even an original idea. For a number of years now and certainly in a

number of presentations to the minister over the last two years it was

recommended that the concept of illegitimacy and the legal impediments

suffered by children born out of wedlock be eliminated. That has not

happened in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no protection whatsoever for the family in this act.

Under

section 10(

l) of the act, for example, a mother's right can be

wiped out without a hearing over the custody of the child.

Section

10(1) is incredible in terms of its powers. Yet we read the press

release that comes out with this piece of legislation and we are told

that this act is making provision for the state and the parents to work

together in maintaining the integrity of the family. You read the act

and you find that the state has arbitrary powers and can decide to wipe

out the rights of the parents without even a hearing. A parent can lose

custody of a child without even a hearing.

Later on I will

speak in more detail about some of the amendments which I have

introduced in an attempt to try to do something with the act, but I

could not get into this debate without expressing deep dissatisfaction

and disappointment with the legislation as it now stands. I had in fact

hoped as a result of seeing the draft that the bill would have been

much better than it is.

One of the things I would like to

suggest that the minister do right away is amend the title of the act

to simply Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1980.

I'm

sure that the minister must have looked at some of the other provinces

and the kinds of legislation which they introduced. Earlier this year

the province of New Brunswick introduced

an act called Child and Family

Services and Family Relations Act. It may not be a bad idea to read

into the record the

preamble to that particular piece of legislation.

It's not a perfect act. There are some things wrong with it, I'm sure.

But if we were to scrap the legislation which we have before us now and

accept the New Brunswick act with a couple of amendments, the children

of the province would be much better served — no question about it.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should have indicated at the beginning that I am the designated speaker.

The

preamble of the New Brunswick Child and Family Services and Family Relations Act states:

"Whereas the family exists as a basic unit of society and its well-being is inseparable from the common well-being;

"Whereas the rights of the child are enjoyed either of himself or of family;

"Whereas

children have basic rights and fundamental freedoms no less than those

of adults: a right to special safeguards and assistance in the

preservation of those rights and freedoms and in the application of the

principles stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights and elsewhere, and a

right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes

that lead to decisions that affect them and that they are capable of

understanding;

"Whereas children are entitled

in every instance where they have rights or freedoms which may be

affected by this act to be informed as to what those rights and

freedoms are and where they are capable of understanding;

"Whereas

it is recognized that the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of

children and their families include a right to the least invasion of

privacy and interference with freedom that is compatible with their own

interests and those of their families and societies;

"Whereas

it is accepted that parents have responsibility for the care and

supervision of their children and that children should only be removed

from parental supervision, either partly or entirely, when all other

measures are inappropriate;

"Whereas it is

acknowledged that when it is necessary to remove children from the care

and supervision of their parents, they should be provided for as nearly

as possible as if they were under the care and protection of wise and

conscientious parents;

"Whereas it is

recognized that elderly disabled and dependent persons are entitled to

protection and can benefit from social services which ensure the

opportunity for personal development;

"Whereas

it is recognized that social services are essential to prevent or

alleviate the social and related economic problems of individuals and

families;

"Whereas it is recognized that the

rights of children, families and individuals must be guaranteed by the

rule of law and that the province's intervention into the affairs of

individuals and families, so as to protect and affirm these rights,

must be governed by the rule of law;

"Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, enacts as follows...."

And it goes on, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the legislation.

The commitment is

very clearly stated there. You compare that with this act of four or five pages,

which makes no commitments and says nothing whatsoever about the rights of the

children, family or anything. It just immediately starts dealing with children

being taken into care. It says: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and

consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia enacts,

as follows...." It goes immediately into talking about custody, special-care

agreements and what happens in the event of the disintegration of the family

and children in need — rather than first of all stating clearly and categorically

what

[ Page 4049 ]

the

government perceives as the basic rights of children, the family and

the community. There should be a simple statement as introduction, and

then it should go on to make commitments in the act itself — to help

realize the beliefs outlined in the

preamble.

In the act it

takes into account such things as the views and preferences of the

child, where such views and preferences can be reasonably ascertained.

It talks about making decisions which take into account the effect upon

the child of any disruption of the child's sense of continuity, and the

love, affection and ties that exist between the child and each person

to whom the child's custody is entrusted, each person to whom access to

the child is guaranteed and, where appropriate, each sibling of the

child. It talks about making decisions which take into account the need

to provide a secure environment that would permit the child to become a

useful and productive member of society through the achievement of his

full potential according to his individual capacity. It also demands

that one take into account the child's cultural and religious heritage.

None

of these things have been dealt with in this piece of legislation. What

we have before us are 12 pages talking about what happens when the

family has fallen apart, when it's disintegrating, and when children

get into trouble, are abused and end up before the courts. Protection

of children legislation is important. The old Protection of Children

Act needed to be amended. If that was all that minister intended to do,

fair enough. This act should have been called An Amendment to the

Protection of Children Act, 1980, and, as such, tabled in the House.

But after two years and 1,500 briefs and at least a year spent on a

piece of draft legislation, I think we're entitled to more than 12

pages dealing with the disintegration of the family and the protection

of children in crisis and in need of care.

I don't know

whether the minister has a copy of the New Brunswick legislation or

not, but it's certainly in the library. That is where I got this copy

from. I would like to recommend it to her. I would like to recommend to

her the

section of the act that deals with the ministry's obligations

to provide for research to be undertaken to determine the social

services needed within the province, and then establish and operate

social service programs and agencies in accordance with this need; to

provide, in accordance with regulations, resources for the

establishment and operation of social service programs and services,

which, in the minister's opinion, enhance the life of the child. It

also talks about the involvement of the community at large. None of

these things are touched on in this particular act.

On page

66 of that act it deals with the question of parentage, which I

mentioned earlier, and says: "For all purposes of the law of the

province, a person is the child of his or her natural parents, and his

or her status as their child is independent of whether the child is

born within or without marriage." I am truly appalled that in 1980 we

still have legislation on the books that does not take into account....

The concept of illegitimacy is archaic and discriminatory and should

not be tolerated — certainly not in a piece of legislation which is

committed to families and to children.

I would also like to

draw the minister's attention to

an act respecting family services in

Saskatchewan, which, again, quite opposite to the 12 pages that the

minister has tabled in the House, deals with some of the positive

responsibilities and positive commitments that the government — or the

state, if one wants to use that word — has towards enhancing the

family. Unlike this particular legislation, throughout the entire act

the