[ Page 783 ]

CONTENTS

Address

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

Mr. Richter — 785

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 786

Mr. Wallace — 786

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 786

Mr. Speaker — 787

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 787

Mrs. Jordan — 788

Mr. Wallace — 789

Hon. Mr. Levi — 790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 791

Hon. Mr. Levi — 791

Mrs. Jordan — 791

Hon. Mr. Levi — 792

Mr. McGeer — 793

Report and third reading — 794

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act (Bill 30).

Committee, report and third reading — 794

Department of Consumer Services Act (Bill 48). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. McGeer — 794

Hon. Ms. Young — 794

Mrs. Jordan — 795

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 795

Mr. Schroeder — 796

Section 5.

Mr. Phillips — 796

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 797

Mrs. Jordan — 797

Hon. Ms. Young — 798

Mr. Phillips — 799

Hon. Ms. Young — 799

Mr. Phillips — 800

Mr. Curtis — 801

Mrs. Jordan — 801

Mr. McGeer — 802

Hon. Ms. Young — 802

Mrs. Jordan — 803

Mr. Phillips — 803

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 804

Mr. Gardom — 804

Mr. Williams — 805

Hon. Ms. Young : — 805

Mr. Phillips — 805

Mrs. Jordan — 806

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 807

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

Introduction and first reading — 807

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on this significant occasion I would ask the leave of the House for the temporary use of the lights and the cameras to greet the occasion of the visit of the Governor of the State of Washington.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on this significant day, which is the second of two that we'll remember for a long time, it's my singular pleasure and duty to introduce to the assembly and to you, Sir, the visiting party from the state to the south of us. On the floor of the House we have Governor and Mrs. Daniel J. Evans; Hon. August P. Mardesich, State Senate Majority Leader; Hon. Harry Lewis, State Senate Minority Leader; and Hon. Leonard A. Sawyer, State House of Representatives Majority Leader. I ask the House to welcome them.

Also seated on the floor of the House is the wife of our Premier, Mrs. Shirley Barrett.

In the Members' gallery, Mr. Speaker, is the official party: they are Mrs. Mardesich, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Sawyer, accompanied by Hon. Bert Cole, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, and Mrs. Cole; Hon. A. Ludlow Kramer, Secretary of State; Hon. George Andrews, Director of the Department of Highways, and Mrs. Andrews; Mr. John Biggs, Director of the Department of Ecology, whose name has frequently been mentioned on the floor of this House — Mr. Biggs and Mrs. Biggs; Mr. Peter Delaney, press secretary; Mr. James Dolliver, Governor Evans' staff, and Mrs. Dolliver; Mr. Jay Fredericksen, Governor Evans' staff; Mr. Jacobs, who is the Director of the Department of Labour and Industries, and Mrs. Jacobs; Col. William Lathrop of Governor Evans' staff; and Mr. Thor C. Tollefson, Director of the Department of Fisheries, and Mrs. Tollefson. I ask the House to welcome the official party.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I ask leave of the House to allow the Hon. Dan Evans, Governor of the State of Washington, the opportunity to speak to your Legislative Assembly Members.

Leave granted.

HON. D.J. EVANS (Governor of the State of Washington): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, Members of this legislative body, my own delegation from the State of Washington and citizens of both our two great nations:

This is one of the rare privileges and honours I've had in the almost nine years I've been Governor of our State of Washington, to be invited to speak to this Legislative Assembly. I recognize that it is indeed a rare privilege and I know very well from my long experience as a Member of our own House of Representatives, prior to becoming Governor, how jealously those in the legislative branch guard the privileges and the responsibilities they share. In fact yesterday when we had the opportunity I enjoyed, as a former Member, the chance to see some of the differences in the way you do things compared with our own state.

The question period, which I understand is a rather new innovation here, was an interesting, in fact, an extremely interesting opportunity. I must say while I enjoyed it as a former Member, I'm not so sure I had equal enjoyment as a Governor because shortly after that visit yesterday I was approached by some of our Members of the Legislature, the legislative leadership, suggesting that that would indeed be a good idea to transport south of the border. (Laughter.)

However, our differences may make it a more difficult than normal thing to do because while the government here can respond to questions knowing they have the comfort of a majority always, I don't share that same opportunity. Entering my legislative chambers would be akin to a true modern Daniel in the lions' den.

But while we all have enjoyed this interchange and the opportunity to see this legislative body in action — and I know the same opportunity extended last year on the visit of the Premier and his cabinet to Olympia — I think we sometimes do forget, and our people unfortunately forget, just how hard our ancestors fought for this very privilege — this very privilege of free debate and popular rule. In fact I suspect today with the cynicism of people toward those in political life and those who represent them in government they have forgotten the great predecessors we had that gave us the privilege, the stability and the continuity of free government here in this nation and in our own.

In fact governments rise and fall around us all over this world — just in recent weeks we have seen one government fall in Chile and the institution of a government not quite as free, perhaps not quite as liberal in its approach. At the same time a few weeks later, the government in Thailand fell, but fell perhaps the other way — from a military leadership to what appears to be an opportunity for a more constitutional approach led interestingly enough by the students and the young of that nation.

[ Page 784 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. EVANS: But governments do fall, all over the world. And as each one falls we should be that much more assured at the wealth of background and the experience we have enjoyed in these two nations, the stability and the continuity of the governments and the representative democracy process we all enjoy.

This visit is and has been an exceptional one. Your hospitality has been first rate — in fact, in talking to some of my colleagues this morning, almost too first rate. And I don't think that all of them ended their opportunities to experience Victoria with the official events of last night.

I think really this, in many respects, is very much like some of the birthday parties I have seen in our home where our youngsters bring in half a dozen or more of their friends. They are all on their best behaviour; they are all dressed up — at least at the beginning. But that is shortly followed usually by a football game on the front lawn, a much more informal exchange which sometimes leads to a little bloodshed, from time to time, but almost invariably ends up with better friendships cemented a little more directly. I hope as we look ahead we will look ahead, not to so many more official birthday parties with everyone on their best behaviour, but rather the football games on the front lawn, the informal exchange which can be of so much benefit, I think, to those of us on both sides of this border.

Yesterday we shared some of our unique opportunities and resources in informal discussions held between you and some of our representatives from the State of Washington. I think it becomes pretty obvious in our state the very careful difference that we draw between our Washington and the other Washington. The distinction between the west, or the northwest of our country, and the middle west and the east is a distinction shared up here as well.

The political, the financial, the business strength of our two nations is concentrated on the eastern seaboard, or at least in the eastern half of our two countries.

Here in the west we are rich in natural resources and I think also rich in human resources; a free spirit, a different spirit perhaps from that which exists today in the eastern halves of our two nations; a determination, a fierce determination, to protect our own land and the physical environment around us.

I suspect that the best word which could be applied to a westerner today is that of an environmentalist. Because I think we are all environmentalists, must be environmentalists if we are to protect the great natural resources we have been blessed with and still allow the continued growth of our human resources as years go on. I think we all share the feeling that growth for growth's sake is no longer a slogan nor a goal to be sought.

I know, while we have these frustrations south of the border, that you have equal frustrations of the same, or perhaps somewhat different kinds, up here. I suggest, in sharing these same concerns, that we turn to an increasing degree north and south for their resolutions. While federal governments of the two nations have major responsibilities and, in fact, in the cases of some of our large problems, have essentially sole responsibility through treaties and through international agreements, nonetheless, I believe we would all agree that too often those of us who live in this part of our two nations have far too little input into those national or international agreements made.

The unique natural resources we have, the national interests of the two nations are involved, unquestionably; but the results affect those of us who live here to a far greater extent than they affect those who live in the other parts of our two countries.

We have a long agenda of joint concerns which have led in past years to conflict at times and, in most cases today, represent unresolved problems. I suspect the best question then before us is whether these unresolved problems become unresolvable or whether, through a much greater interchange on informal as well as formal basis, we do work toward the resolution of these concerns.

I need not list all of them, but some which are of current interest regard our great oceanographic resources, particularly the fisheries resources of our two nations and this particular area of a great ocean. We share joint concerns, I think, at the invasion of foreign fisheries fleets from an increasing number of nations, utilizing the resources which are close to our own borders and resources which, in many cases, have been initiated and developed through the efforts of people of our two areas.

The great question of basic energy resources, particularly those of natural gas and oil, remains and perhaps increases as a problem we all must face. The tragedy of the Middle East is likely to have fallout that will go far beyond that area of the world and will impinge on the future of each of us in this particular area of responsibility. Of course unquestionably the difficulty we face in those natural resources will affect the development of our oil resources in Alaska and the shipment of those oil resources, which I know of are such enormous concern to the citizens of British Columbia.

I was delighted yesterday to hear the first question in the question period as it related to Point Roberts. I must say that I probably shared with the Member of the opposition a concern over a not very specific answer from the government. (Laughter.) But it is a real and a growing problem and one which deserves the best of each of us if the people who live there, the people who own property there, are to have some security as to their own future. The great

[ Page 785 ]

opportunities for tourism and recreation affect us all. I have mentioned, but need mention again, the enormous and interrelated problems of energy, its use and its conservation. Perhaps that word conservation is one we must all keep in mind. I have mentioned that we, as westerners, should consider ourselves as environmentalists. If that is true, as I believe it is, then also should we consider this age we are now entering upon as an age of conservation, an age of conservation which simply must replace an era of waste which we were taught over the last 25 to 30 years or more — taught to waste because we believed that our natural resources were inexhaustible and cheap and that we had no worry over their replacement.

Suddenly and obviously we have found that that is not true. Thus, not for a short period, not to meet an immediate crisis, but for all time to come we simply have to consider ourselves in an age of conservation if we are to retain and expand our own human condition in the remainder of this century.

I have had an opportunity to speak to the Premier, at least briefly, about some of these problems, both in his visit to Olympia and in my visit here. Obviously, in their resolution, we must consider our own interests. But I suggest that each of our interests, very likely, depends on our willingness and our ability to join together for their resolution.

I suggest then, in the spirit of that football game I mentioned earlier, that we meet on a more regular, and perhaps a more informal basis, to give an opportunity for counterparts on each side of the border to discuss issues before they become crises, to investigate ways in which we might resolve our joint problems before they become contests between us, to meet in an effort to discover those areas we might explore which can be of mutual interest to both of us and to share the unique and innovative ideas each government has suggested and developed for its own people.

I was struck a few years ago, in flying across the border, to see for the first time the physical border which does separate us. Perhaps not all of you have seen that physical border, but in flying above it in an airplane you do see that long, straight line with some clearing on both sides. It's visible; it's apparent; it's unprotected.

We have long been proud of the longest unprotected border dividing two nations anywhere on the face of this earth. But I don't believe that term "unprotected border" takes full meaning unless there is also a maximum exchange, a free exchange across that unprotected border.

If I am the first Governor of my state, or at least the first in the past half-century, to have the privilege to address you, I hope many will follow. I hope that we can prove, over the years to come, that this area of the world can plan its own growth wisely and well, that we can use our natural resources properly for not only our benefit, but for the benefit of those who follow us — and, most of all, to provide a human environment, a unique human environment, one which we will all be proud to pass along to our descendants.

Thank you so much for this privilege of addressing you.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, having the Hon. Dan Evans, Governor of the State of Washington immediately to our south, his distinguished colleagues and the retinue of people who have come with him is an occasion rather unique in the history of the British parliamentary system, where we have always guarded very jealously the fact that you were an elected Member before you could speak in the Legislative Assembly.

I welcome this occasion, particularly on behalf of my colleagues here in the official opposition, in that we are seeing a new era emerge, and by this emergence of this new era we are able to bring about a closer liaison, an exchange of ideas and the opportunity to see the problems of those who are immediately surrounding us or adjoining us. This factor is probably something that we should have probably entered into much sooner. We would probably have had greater peace in the world today had this occurred.

It is a peculiar thing: we are all made alike as humans, but the reason we have these varying differences is completely, I feel, a matter of lack of liaison, a lack of understanding of our neighbours' problems, conditions and so on.

My forefathers — if I can say forefathers — my mother and father both came from the United States. I have many relatives in the United States. This great unarmed border that we have has been something of a mystery to me when I look around the other parts of the world, especially when I cross an international border — the simplicity we have in moving back and forth. The understanding that we have of each other has always been something in my mind that I have guarded jealously. I think this is a terrific example to the rest of the world. I would hope that it would continue that way.

An item that was mentioned yesterday by our Premier and also by Governor Evans was the matter of the Pig War. One would never have thought that there had been any real differences between the State of Washington and British Columbia. But actually I have rather a close kinship in relation to the Pig War in that it was General Harney of the U.S. Army who was the mediator of that war.

It was my father, who was his Indian scout, that actually made it possible for the West to be settled. I don't say that it was my father that settled it, or anything of that nature, but he was one of the

[ Page 786 ]

participants, and I am very proud of the fact that he was able to participate in bringing about the development of the western United States. My father eventually migrated into British Columbia in 1964 as a fur trader.

Now the part that I feel very close about is that my father was a silver miner in New Mexico and Arizona, and he presented a pair of silver spurs to General Harney. I have a duplicate pair in my possession. It doesn't seem that long ago, but it was some considerable time ago.

Fortunately we have had no conflicts since the pig died and was put away and everybody was happy. You know, if all wars could be settled that simply, it would be a wonderful world to live in. However, we do have more serious conflicts.

I think because of today's occasion with Governor Evans and his group being with us we can really appreciate a closer kinship, a better understanding and the entering into a new era of relations, liaison and so on between the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington.

Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the previous speaker and associate the Liberal Party with the words of the Hon. Governor Evans.

He has been described as a Liberal-Republican, the only political description given, so perhaps there's some affinity to him.

I would like to thank him very much for pointing out that governments do fall. (Laughter.) We took considerable encouragement from his words on this side of the House and we would like to congratulate him, Mr. Speaker, on the speed of his mind. He was in this Legislature for just a few moments, the first question was asked and he realized, of course, the defect of the question period at once. We, too, shared his disappointment at the answer and will point out that some things, which seem good in theory, in practice are not always perfect.

We would like to again thank him and also for his remarks, having been a former legislator, about the jealously-guarded privileges of the Legislature. Perhaps because of the nature of the British parliamentary system, we in opposition and the government when it was in opposition, take this role very seriously. I can assure him that we do.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned his history in connection with the Americans going back many years. There's a family story of ours that my great-grand father was either a draft-dodger or a deserter — I'm not sure which — from the American forces during the Civil War and, therefore, is one of the first of a long line of people who have come to Canada for political reasons from the United States.

I would like to say that we welcome the political visit of the Hon. Governor, we thank him for coming and we would just like to remind him that, while we do have differences, we have not entirely forgotten the Pig War, we have not entirely forgotten the Alaska Panhandle and that one day, we trust the San Juan Islands and the Panhandle will revert to Canadian sovereignty.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Speaking after the two opposition party leaders, as a Scotsman, I am going to have a terrible job identifying my heritage with America. (Laughter.) Really, I think that the events of the Governor's visit demonstrate very clearly the shrinking nature of the world and, of course, the overriding importance to peoples of different parts of the world and different parts of this continent of exchanging ideas.

The Governor also, I think, typifies the younger, vigorous type of leader who is emerging in the modern political world. My first recollection of the Governor was to see a picture of the Governor rapelling down the side of the clock tower at Evergreen College. It seemed to me that this was an unusual thing for a leader to do, but on the other hand it seemed to me to typify some of the characteristics of the appropriate leader — a mixture of courage and a certain amount of flamboyance.

I think that in the modern world it is so important that we don't become overanxious about the many problems, such as the Governor outlined in his speech, and always preserve a sense of humour to try to keep people from becoming too obsessed with the many serious problems of the world.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting also, on the occasion of the Governor's visit, to make sure he realizes that the hospitality extended at Government House last night…while, as always, the food was delightful, the entertainment was a little different from usual. I think we should all recognize what might best be called the stand-up performance by His Honour himself.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this party is very happy to see the stronger bonds being developed between the State of Washington and British Columbia. We hope this is setting an example for other states bordering Canadian provinces and, indeed, with the tremendous strife in other parts of the world, we hope that this is setting a good example for all of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the official Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party for their very gracious remarks to our guest. Although the leader of the Conservative Party says that he has no personal links to the Americans, let me point out that many

[ Page 787 ]

Americans, as I understand it, are very familiar with the products of your home country. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Long may it continue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a unique and very unusual experience in our House to have a guest be permitted to speak. I feel just as strongly as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter) about the privilege of speaking in this House, and because of that, I can't think of a more appropriate person to be the first in my memory to have the opportunity of speaking, by leave, to this House.

Governor Evans has pointed out the problems that have existed, now do exist and will exist in the future. Some of them, as he has said, we will not be able to resolve, but nonetheless, even at that point we have never resorted to physical violence between two sovereign nations represented by the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia.

Governor Evans, as a human being, represents a dimension of political life that is a reflection of a hope of the people in this region. We all feel a great sense of love for the physical beauties of our respective areas. Because of that uniqueness and that sense of love we have we do feel, in common with the Governor, sometimes that our federal jurisdictions don't completely understand us, but perhaps that will change too.

I welcome the Governor's initiative in suggesting more contacts with the State of Washington, and I look forward to initiating that.

As a memento of the Governor's visit to British Columbia, I'd like to present to him one of the limited editions of a book The Wildflowers of British Columbia by Lewis J. Clark. This book has a beautiful collection of photographs, in a limited edition, of the flowers of the Province of British Columbia, many of which are found in the State of Washington and are unique to our region. Perhaps more than anything else, this book will symbolize the real lack of a border by nature in our two jurisdictions.

HON. MR. EVANS: Mr. Premier, if I may be permitted one final word, I'm gratified. My wife and I and my family, I hope, will be given leave by the government, by this House and by the people of British Columbia to on occasion come north of the border, tramp your highlands and your mountains to seek out some of these wildflowers. I agree with the Premier, it represents in a very real sense the nature which joins us, in spite of the boundary which may divide us.

Let me also thank each of the Members of the opposition for their kind words. I was delighted to hear of the family relationships which bind us. I'm delighted to hear your kind words and hope that there will be many opportunities for us to join together in the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, also in behalf of the Members of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia, we have a small gift to Mrs. Evans.

MR. SPEAKER: And while we're in a giving mood, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, as Speaker, I would like to present an argillite statue from the Queen Charlotte Islands carved by a native carver near Massett — I think a nice specimen of that unique work — to Mrs. Evans on behalf of the Legislature.

On behalf of the Legislature again, because we have a Speaker on the floor of the House, the Hon. Leonard Sawyer, House of Representatives Majority Leader — I wonder if you'd come forward — I'd like to give him an old-fashioned artifact carved by a Haida Indian, which was, I understand, called a gavel. They used to use them before cut-out buttons. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

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

On section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, at the second reading of this bill, the Minister made a very wide-ranging statement followed up by another wide-ranging statement from the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — I might add a very interesting statement she made until eventually cut off by the Chair.

A number of issues were raised which go beyond the immediate scope of section 1, but in the light of the debate that we had on second reading, which was of great concern to large numbers of people, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to question the Minister a little on section 1.

The first point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister indicated he will be permitting the parents who have allowed children to go out for adoption to find their children. In other words, to

[ Page 788 ]

come again in contact with their children, which is a principle that up to now has been very, very jealously guarded because of the traumatic, psychological problems that can arise due to conflicts of interest when a child, having been adopted, at an age of anywhere from 12 to 21, is suddenly reminded of the fact that it is not the true child of the parents whom up to that point the child may have always considered to be his own parents.

The difficulties that have arisen in this in the past led to virtually an embargo on that type of information passing back and forth.

The Minister indicated and he gave some examples…. I must say I really do appreciate the Minister's frank and very open discussion of this at that time because this, for certain individual families, is a matter of absolutely critical importance.

I must say I received some frantic telephone calls, following the report of the Minister's statement in the press, from people who have adopted children, who happen to know who the actual parents of the child are, and who are absolutely deathly afraid of having the family life they've been able to create around the adopted child simply blown apart, totally destroyed by the problems that could arise if the child itself became aware of the fact that it was adopted, or the child itself became aware of who its true parents might be.

I beg your indulgence on this section because we are really going back, I guess, to discussion that the Minister raised at that time. The difficulty for some of these people is a matter of constant day and night worry. It has been ever since the Minister made his original statements. They simply don't know what the government's intentions in this regard are. They understood there were legal barriers to inquiries by the true parents, particularly in the case of the mother, to find out and then identify herself to the child concerned.

We realize, we know full well, why this bill came in. It was a decision — in my view, if I can criticize the bench, an erroneous decision by Judge Tyrwhitt-Drake.

We know the difficulties that the Minister is faced with, but I would ask him to comment at some length in a fairly general sense to set at rest the concern of these parents. I know the Attorney General is looking worried, and perhaps it should have originally been him getting up to comment during second reading to set at rest the concerns that were raised in the second reading debate. I trust that the Minister will in turn do that.

The second point I would like the Minister to comment on, and comment on again, in a fairly definitive fashion if he can, is the status of the adoptions. I believe there are some 65 which are in limbo as a result of the statement made earlier in second reading and the concern that arose immediately after.

I refer you to the comments of Indian leaders. I believe Chief Phillip Paul, a former constituent of mine, raised some very interesting points which the Minister might well like to comment upon — when you have what are essentially the cross-racial adoptions; in other words, adoptions by white couples or couples of asiatic descent of native Indian children. I should in addition add couples of black descent as well; in other words, non-Indians adopting Indian kids.

This has happened in many instances very successfully; I can think, without naming names, of one Member of this Legislature who certainly is to be commended for adopting a child of another racial extraction and has done a splendid job in bringing that child up.

The fact is that all such adoptions are now, I believe, in limbo, and, as there apparently is not the source of Indian parents willing to adopt, I wonder whether the Minister would comment on how he intends to get around this problem. It is, I realize, a critical problem. If there are not the Indian parents available for adopting these kids, then obviously the Minister and his bureaucrats must look elsewhere.

I would think that it would be worse — and I asked him for his professional advice as a former social worker as well as his advice as Minister — to keep these children in institutions rather than adopt them out, even if it means adopting across racial lines.

Now, these are wide-ranging questions. I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your indulgence and kindness in allowing these points to be raised. But can these people, who do not know who their children's parents might be and have this tremendous concern as to whether or not the true parentage will be exposed, whether or not there will be the psychological difficulties that the family will face as a result of exposure, can they have their fears set at rest?

In addition, I wonder on the second point, directly on Indian adoptions, whether he would indicate the present policy of his department, or, if there's some legal bar somewhere or some study underway, when we can expect the backlog to be dealt with and when we can expect a regular system of adoptions of Indian children.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to speak on behalf of our party to section 1 of this bill, and not repeat but endorse the concerns that have been made by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) in relation to interracial adoptions and the concern of now-adopted parents as to the future within that family unit in light of what the Minister has said he may well allow.

I would like to ask the Minister — because I've not been present and not had an opportunity to ask him before he went to third reading on this bill — whether

[ Page 789 ]

he has given any serious thought to what I understand is a serious reaction on the part of the native Indian people in British Columbia to this bill. My understanding is that some of them have not yet received a copy of the bill, others only just received a copy, and they're deeply concerned about not only the points that have been made this morning and points that were made in second reading but whether, in fact, there aren't hidden ramifications. In using the term "hidden" I don't mean to imply intentional hiding.

The government has displayed in other areas actions which have had, unknown to them, very long term, far-reaching ramifications, potentially destructive to the native Indian rights in British Columbia, as the efforts that they were trying to work, the government itself, in British Columbia affected the status of the Indians under the BNA Act.

I would ask the Minister to think about this very, very seriously, through you, Mr. Chairman, because I feel confident that he wouldn't want to enact an Act in this Legislature which did, in fact, undermine the rights of some of the native Indians, unbeknown to himself or to this Legislature.

One of the concerns that the native people have expressed is their long standing fear that they do not want to be integrated within any other race or society, either intentionally or subtly. I believe we are all aware that there has been an intent, in part, on the part of the federal government to subtly integrate the native Indian people in Canada. I think many of us are opposed to this approach. I think that their fear of subtle integration possibly through this Act in one aspect is grounded. I would ask the Minister to comment on this.

I asked the Minister, in second reading of the bill, what effect this Act would have in terms of legality and also in terms of human effects, if an Indian lady chose to adopt a white man to give social livability to the relationship, to give a legal name to the children of that relationship, and, in fact, to preserve her rights as a native Indian.

I asked again for the Minister to comment on this because, while he smiles — and I should certainly smile when I think about it myself — my understanding is that this is a possibility that could take place. I think it is very important before we pass this bill to know if it could happen. Would it be legal; what would be the status of the children of that relationship — they obviously would be of mixed blood; would they have native Indian rights; what would be their status in the rest of society; could this be a subtle form of integration which the Indians themselves would oppose? And again, when I say a subtle form, I'm not accusing the Minister of this intention at all.

I really feel, Mr. Chairman — although I have not prepared a motion to this effect — that unless the

Minister can give us very clear-cut answers to the concerns that have been expressed by the few native people who have read the bill and to some of the questions that have been posed by them and by the Members of this Legislature, because of the extreme danger there is in trying to do a good deed but, in fact, undermining the rights of the native people of British Columbia in relation to the federal Act, that he give this matter further study. As I say, I'm not making a proposal because I would like to hear his answers. But if he, can't answer these questions positively, to the point where he's willing to stand 10 years from now in relationship and answer for any consequences of this Act, he should withhold the bill, study the questions and the legalities, discuss it further with the native Indian people, and reintroduce it at the next session. I invite his comments to these questions.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll be brief and seek your indulgence for just a few moments to express the feeling of our party on this issue, which isn't entirely to the point in regard to section 1 of the bill. Nevertheless, both as a physician and as a politician, I feel that the suggestion that efforts should be made to bring together the natural parents and the adopted children is fraught with tremendous danger.

I have also had calls and one particular letter, which the Minister has received, so I needn't go into all the details. I think the writer of that letter, Mr. Thornton, spells out very well some of the very real potential dangers which exist if one should encourage adopted children…. Again, I'm a little out of order, but it doesn't just apply to whether they're Indian children or white children or any other kind of children; it is the principle of emotional stress and strain which attaches both to the adopted child and to the mother and father who gave up that child some time ago.

The adopting parents also, I think, are entitled to consider that, when they adopted the child not too many years ago, part of the policy of social services was not to identify the child with the natural parent or to have the parent have access to the child. Now it would appear that that policy is probably about to be changed with very great concern to the adopting parents.

This letter that I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, also makes a very good point. Although the lady whom the Minister quoted in his speech talked of four adults who were enriched by having contact with their biological parents, there was no balancing statement as to how many adults or children had been disturbed by having been put in contact with their natural parents. It just seems to me, when one tries to be very human and objective about this suggestion in this very important matter, that there

[ Page 790 ]

must be a tremendous conflict in the minds of both the natural parent and the adopted child if they're brought together again either in their childhood or teen-age years.

It is a tremendously difficult problem, and no one has the correct answer I'm sure, but I think it is the responsibility of government and this House at least to be able to put on record the concern and the anxiety of people who have adopted children under a certain series of guidelines, one of which was to establish confidentiality in regard to the parents of the adopted child to prevent them coming together at a later date. To change such guidelines, the emotional and social and legal possibilities which might mushroom from that meeting are very considerable.

I'm sure that the Minister, Mr. Chairman, is in no way seeking to experiment in this field. He simply, I think, was putting forward an idea which perhaps others had suggested to him. But if we take into serious account the kind of sentiments expressed by Mr. Thornton, who apparently discussed the matter with many of his close friends and acquaintances who also have adopted children, he says that with only two exceptions they were all greatly alarmed and would eagerly wish to hear the Minister's thoughts after he has reconsidered this.

I think that the Minister can now enlarge on his proposals, or if he's perhaps decided that this idea is premature and requires some more study, I think he will be putting many minds at rest in the province — the minds of people who have adopted children.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I want to be very careful in what I say because I'm aware that some people are very anxious about their reading of the statements that I made on second reading.

First of all, what I presented was an idea; I did not present and did not represent it as being something that was about to become policy. I said that we'd had a number of representations. I also referred to the fact that we were not dealing with young children; we were talking about the older children past 19 years of age.

However, to certainly set at ease the parents who've had some anxiety: this is not about to become policy at all. There will be a wide-ranging discussion about it, probably going on for a couple of years. Nevertheless, we've had some people who have asked us, but this in no way applies to young children and it would in no way apply to anyone who did not want to be involved in it. We are not going to impose anything on anyone.

As I said in the second reading: I, as a social worker over the years, had literally dozens of young people come to me looking for their natural parents. One cannot just say to young people in their 20s, "Well, I can't help you; there's nothing I can do."

The search goes on anyway.

But again let me reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that this is not policy and it is not about to become policy. It is a question of discussion. We are having, as I announced before, a royal commission on family law, and presumably this kind of thing will be before that commission — at least, I hope it would be before it.

But certainly to allay any fears that any of the parents have who have adopted: this is not a policy and it is not about to become policy. It is something which I think has to be discussed, though. I can assure everyone that it's not going to be policy and there will be a great deal of discussion with a lot of people before we make any decisions on this.

Now I hope that I've been able to assure the Members and the family out there of this. When I introduced the bill at second reading I said that we were looking at a number of areas in terms of adoption.

I want now to turn to the questions by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). We met with Phillip Paul recently in my office to discuss their concerns about the bill in relation to the Indian people. The situation now is — and I'm advised by our legal people — that no adoptions can go forward. There are, in fact, 65 cases that are in limbo. I have said — and this apparently will take several months to resolve this matter of the judgment of Mr. Tyrwhitt-Drake and the appeal — that we have stopped accepting applications for adoption of Indian children. All of those that are in the works are also in limbo.

Now I said also in second reading that we are concerned about the number of Indian children that are being adopted into white families because many Indian families that might want to be able to adopt children under their extended-family system that they have on the reserves are not able to do this because they have not the money to support the children.

I talked about the idea of subsidized adoption. We are looking into this question; this is one of the other points that I raised. This is not a new discussion that we've had with the Indians about subsidized adoptions and their concern with the adoption of Indian children into white families. They express it in a very dramatic fashion; they see it as ethnic genocide — a dissolving of their culture.

We have to listen to them, and we certainly did listen to them the other day when they came in. They were accompanied by their lawyer from Ottawa, Mr. Doug Sanders, who at the moment is completing a study for the federal Law Reform Commission on the question of status of Indians. That report apparently will not be finished for some time. He will make available to us his services once there is a report done. But in terms of this bill here, we are advised that we need to state that our Act does not in fact take away,

[ Page 791 ]

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

Again, I would think that this kind of discussion about the rights of Indian children in relation to our Adoption Act will become subject of discussion for the royal commission. There'll be further discussion of it. It's not our intention to withdraw the bill. We feel that it meets a requirement — after some very serious legal advice from our department that we should go ahead with it. We have to deal with the results of the appeal with respect to Mr. Tyrwhitt-Drake's decision. It underlines our feeling that in no way does our Act take away the rights of Indian children when they're adopted.

Now in respect to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan's (Mrs. Jordan's) question regarding the question of an adult, I'm afraid that we have not pursued this further. But if she will take my assurance that I will, then I will communicate with her about this. I did not seek legal advice on it, but I'm certainly quite prepared to seek advice on it.

Because we will meet again in the spring, if we find then that there's a requirement to make a further amendment or to modify whatever we've done, we certainly will do it. But the best advice we have is that this amendment is necessary if we're going to ensure people that these rights are, in fact, inviolate. However, the outcome of the report on the status of Indians from the federal royal commission perhaps could change this too. We may get into some areas which are completely out of my ken — and that is in relation to the constitutional matters.

It's only recently that there's been any very serious work, as I understand, in this particular area of status. I'm certainly very happy that it is going on and that I did have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Sanders who is the lawyer who is doing this particular thing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Minister for his remarks. It does, to a certain degree, relieve some of our anxiety. I'm taking from his remarks that there's no way that children under the age of 21 could be informed of their true parents unless, of course, the adopted parents also agree that this should take place. I see him nodding his head; I thank him very much.

On the strict question of children of Indian descent being adopted, whomever by, may I ask the Minister whether there are subsequent discussions that he is going to have with people such as Phillip Paul or the council on questions relating to this matter, or is he waiting for the royal commission report and then are we going to go through after that with another amendment?

What I would like to know is that…. Phillip Paul made perfectly clear that the child sometime is adopted now and he is adopted into a family; he is not informed of the fact he has Indian rights as a treaty Indian — the distinction of course between the treaty and the non-status Indian is extremely important in a legal sense — he loses later on in his life these rights because he was never informed that he had them in the first place, and they somehow or other get eroded. This was one of the basic concerns of Mr. Paul.

I wonder whether the Minister would comment directly on his continuing negotiations with Indians in the near future while these reports and royal commissions are reporting and also whether or not some provision has been worked out at age 21 for informing the child of Indian descent, who may well be over 50 per cent of white blood or other racial extraction, but who is nevertheless a treaty Indian.

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

HON. MR. LEVI: As the Hon. Member may know, in the paper that he presented to us he recommended some procedures that we could follow under the Superintendent of Child Welfare about notification to the Registrar-General within the Indian Affairs department about children and adoptions. He suggested that there be a requirement that the Superintendent of Child Welfare advise the adopting parents of the child's band and the child's rights within that band. We are now reviewing some policy on this that we would like to submit to the Attorney General's department for consideration.

There will be some continuing meetings because we have already met, as a matter of fact, two days ago with Mrs. Rose Charlie who is with the Indian Homemakers Association and who is also very concerned about this. We want to have some discussion with them about the subsidized adoption question.

We have an agreement with Mr. Paul that we will be meeting on a continual basis. Once we have worked out a statement that we want to submit to the Attorney General, we will contact Mr. Paul to have them look at it before we submit it to see whether they can meet some of the requirements he has suggested. I think some of the suggestions he has in there are quite interesting.

Within the brief itself, I think — and this of course is a federal question — the differentiation between procedures between provinces is really quite remarkable considering that it is a federal Act. We are quite prepared to introduce procedures, subject to the approval of our legal people, that will in any way even more so ensure the rights of the children. We will be having discussions with Mr. Paul on this as soon as we have worked out a position for the statement.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept the Minister's statements

[ Page 792 ]

then and his assurances regarding this bill. I still question the advisability of pursuing it, partially from your own statement.

You mentioned that you heard from Mrs. Charlie just two days ago, and you heard from Mr. Paul. One of the things that I wish to repeat to you is that I think one of the problems is that this bill, and the ramifications of it, have not been fully studied by the majority of the Indian people in British Columbia. It's just a few chiefs who have spoken out because it came to their attention.

I recognize your concern in trying to expedite those adoptions that are in limbo, but sometimes it is not always wise to cut off the head because the body drops dead, even though it may look better or go into the box better. I think you must move extremely cautiously on this.

One of the bad things that has happened in the past is the utilization of the Indian as a political tool. None of us wants to see this and I know the Minister doesn't.

I think that we have to recognize, perhaps even more than with many other groups of people, that time unfortunately is important and that in anything that is done that affects the native Indian people in our province there should be ample time for the majority — and I mean the majority, right to their grass roots — to know what it is that is happening, why it has been brought about and what the results are going to be. I think in something like this bill it is extremely important because it does have long-term ramifications and does raise a lot of questions.

Perhaps the Minister can answer those questions and give us the assurance we want. It is the confidence of the people and the Indian people themselves that you have to be striving for, even more than our confidence.

The Minister threw out a thought as to whether it would be wise to allow natural parents to meet with the adopted child. You say that you had requests for this and you are now back-pedalling a bit and saying it was just a thought, that you feel there should be discussion.

I would like to know the basis for your reasoning that there should be discussion.

It is well of you to give assurance today to the media, to those parents who have adopted native children under guidelines, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has said, that were clearly understood and that this should allay their concern. But I assure you, Mr. Minister, it isn't going to allay their concern.

The ball is in the fire now. Why was it put in the fire? Who are the people who asked you to consider this question? If you have correspondence, will you file it with the House so that we know whether in fact this is a concern that's been expressed and an idea that has been expressed by adopting parents? Or is it a super-liberal idea that somebody dreamed up?

To discuss it for two years, saying that it may or may not be policy, without giving these parents and these people, particularly, a sound reason for why you threw it out, I think you are just going to prolong their agony. They can only look forward to two years more of concern and unease and perhaps agitation from the children themselves who are in the agitating teenage group.

I think that it is not sufficient for you to just lightly dismiss it as "it was an idea I threw out." Because whether or not it was, the fat is in the fire; the young people are concerned; some of them are going to use this against their adopting parents.

I represent a family who is involved in this. They have been having problems with one of the boys whom they have from the reserve. They have been working it out and it's got a reasonable chance of success. But now he is throwing the old hatchet at them, saying: "The government says I can see my parents. I want to know." And the reason that he wants to get out from under them is because there is an opportunity to get into a much more lax environment.

So that is just one case, without going into a lot of details, where this casual comment, or this throwing out of an idea, is causing great problems in one family, and I would suggest that this is repeated around the province.

I would like to know from you, Mr. Minister, who came to you with this idea. Have you got it in writing? Will you table it in the House?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to reject completely the Hon. Member's suggestion that this was a lightly-considered idea. Nothing I do in this department or statements I make is done in a light fashion at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEVI: I have been in this business long enough to know what's going on, having had 16 years' practical experience in the field. I don't do anything lightly in terms of proposing ideas in relation to children or anyone who is covered by the legislation in this department.

It is not a frivolous idea. I pointed out in my remarks in second reading a range of things that we were thinking about. This is a style of the government. We like to let people know what we are thinking.

What you are talking about has no relationship to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill deals with the rights of children.

Interjection.

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

[ Page 793 ]

another question. We are dealing with the question that I pointed out to the House, that no one is going to have imposed on them that they will have to have some kind of meeting with the child's natural parents. If there's no agreement then nothing will happen. In any case, this applies to children past the age of 19. This does not apply to young children.

In terms of my experience, as I said when I got up before to speak, I have had a large number of young people come to me asking this very question.

I pointed out in second reading that I had been discussing with the Children's Aid Society, with a Mrs. Mulwinkel — it's in the Hansard — about this kind of idea. It was brought on as an idea. It was not brought on as policy as I've expressed. Again, it is not policy and it is not going to become policy.

But it will be discussed. We are not prepared to put things under the mat. Nobody has to have any anxieties about it.

In respect to the Indians, we are meeting with them. We have continued to meet with them over the past several months. I must say that we have had some disappointment in response to the request which was made on several occasions that they make available to us suggestions on prospective adoptive parents who are Indians and also in relation to foster care.

We are quite prepared, and we are doing it now, to assist Indians regardless of their status in any number of programmes. We have taken the position that if these programmes in respect to status Indians are not provided by Indian Affairs, then we are going to provide them and have the discussion afterwards with Indian Affairs about the financing. We are doing this in a very practical way.

When I spoke to Mr. Paul the other day we said that we would be having further discussions with them about the subsidized adoption question. And I assured Mrs. Charlie that we would be meeting to discuss not only the homemaker programme but the receiving-home suggestions that she had made.

I think we have been as open and as communicative as we can with the Indians. They have come to us. We have met with them. We have now made proposals and we will be meeting with them again, as I said, in respect to the recommendations we want to make about the Superintendent of Child Welfare notifying the Registrar-General.

Let me reiterate, there is nothing frivolous about anything that I say in this House. I am only too aware that when we get up to speak it has to be in such a way that people don't get mixed messages. At the same time, the House has a right to know, and so do the people, not necessarily the direction we are going specifically, but certainly some of the ideas we are considering and have been asked to consider.

That's what we have done. We open up to as great an extent as possible the thinking that's going on in the department. That was simply what I attempted to do and what I think by and large I succeeded in doing, when I introduced the bill in second reading.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I think we have made it clear that we support the legislation. We recognize the dilemma the Minister has and we appreciate his sincere motivation. But I have reservations about the course of action that we are pursuing with some of the legislation that we are bringing in now and some that we brought in under the former administration.

I don't believe we should practise apartheid I'd Canada; I don't think we should encourage it either by law or in economics. I think the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), in many speeches in this House, has expressed that that's his view too. If we try to sort people out in Canada by races we don't run into problems just with adoption; we run into problems of quarter-breeds and half-breeds and all the kinds of things that have plagued countries that have had apartheid as a definite, conscious policy of government.

Here in Canada we are doing it in a slightly different way. We are bringing in all kinds of economic incentives for the Indian people for good and legitimate social reasons. But at the same time we turn our backs on the host of other social problems that this kind of economic incentive based on racial heritage inevitably brings down upon us.

The adoption problem, I think, is a classic example of that difficulty. This really creates for us in Canada, for the Indian and the non-Indian people, a moral question that needs to be faced squarely. Do we believe in apartheid in Canada or do we not" When we've come face to face with that question then we'll begin. to bring in legislation that makes long-term common sense.

What we are doing now with one piece of legislation at the federal level, another piece of legislation at the provincial level, is to create problems rather than to solve them. I don't believe in apartheid. I think it is wrong; I think it is wrong in any nation on this earth. Until we can learn to assist people who need assistance on the basis of their individual circumstances and not on the basis of their race, we are going to build social problems that fester generation after generation after generation.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister, he can't possibly produce an overall long-term solution, nor can his government. But at least he, and all of us, can face the problem honestly and squarely.

This piece of legislation, quite frankly, encourages apartheid, no matter how worthy its purpose. And here I am, having spoken against it, saying I'll support the bill — because I think right at this moment perhaps it's the appropriate thing to do.

I know we are not supposed to criticize judges, but

[ Page 794 ]

I think it's stemming from a rather stupid decision. Somebody read the fine print in the law and decided to create a social problem because of it. But maybe, just maybe, a service has been done by that.

If this kind of thing brings us to our senses so that we don't try to deal with the question with legislation such as Bill 12 but begin to ask the fundamental question — do we believe in apartheid? — make a fundamental decision yes or no, and, having made that decision — and I'm certain that the decision will be no — then we begin to tailor our legislation, all of it, federally and provincially, to building the only kind of country which will have long-term survival in this world, namely one that's dedicated to the betterment of all its citizens on an equal basis.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 30.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT ACT

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Schedule approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 2(3), line 2.

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

MR. McGEER: Yes, it will be, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize we were going into committee on this particular bill.

The amendment is to strike out the word "he" and substitute the words "the Minister". This is done, Mr. Speaker, in deference to the very capable lady Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Ms. Young). I well recognize that this is frequently done and it's an accepted procedure in drafting legislation for the male-chauvinist legislative draftsman to continually refer to Ministers as "he". But this is manifestly incorrect. I don't think we should be male-chauvinist legislators, even if there's a male-chauvinist legislative draftsman…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: …or Premier, yes. So what this amendment is intended to do — it's a very simple thing. I'm not going to belabour the point — is just to strike a blow for cabinet equality — not to refer to the Minister as "he" when the Minister very obviously is "she." And I hope it's going to remain "she" as long as this government is in office. So, Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment — it's on the order paper, page 36.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): This is a trivial amendment moved by a trivial party…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MS. YOUNG: …a party that is traditionally two steps and three years behind where it's really at. A party, Mr. Chairman, that had to be coerced into running any women candidates in the

[ Page 795 ]

last election by the Vancouver Status of Women Council…

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

HON. MS. YOUNG: …and also ran the fewest women of all the major parties in the province. It is also the party which only in the past couple of months has seen fit to disband the ghetto of their ladies' auxiliary, their Liberal Women's Association. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: A liberal speaks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MS. YOUNG: As I said before, this is the party that's two steps and three years behind of what's really going on with the people in this country and in this province. That's why they number only five over there; that's why they're in a minority position in Ottawa today.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is so important to that little party, let them have their little amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister is going to allow the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister: does the Hon. Minister accept the amendment?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it's irrelevant to you who accepts what. We vote on these things.

Interjections.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if those two tigers want to go at it, they can carry on.

If the Minister's statements that she just made are an example of her reply in a positive vein to something she accepts, I rather wonder if I want to be around when she makes the statement in a negative vein. I wonder just how the consumers of this province are going to benefit.

However, I think, in speaking on behalf of our party, that this amendment is minor. I myself have never been known as a "bra burner" — I need them myself.

I feel that extremism in the liberation movement has probably had some benefits in waking up public attitudes, which is really where a good deal of the problem is in discrimination against women. We all know that we cannot legislate open-mindedness and tolerance, nor to a large degree can we legislate women's rights which should be in terms of human rights. However, I think that when the Minister herself has said very much in the forerunning of the more extreme liberation movement, that she would be wise to accept this amendment, whether it's frivolous or not, whether it's chauvinist male or chauvinist female. I think in itself just suggesting that the term "Minister" be used instead of the designation of "he" or "she" is certainly not going to do anyone any harm and we would propose to support it.

It does not make any difference to this party whether the Minister of consumer affairs, contrary to what the liberals say, is a male or a female. What we want is a Minister of consumer affairs who is going to be able to look out for the legitimate right of the consumer in British Columbia, and do this on the basis of fact and not on fiction — a point that I'll have more to say about in the later sections of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the amendment; thank the Minister for her kind and gracious speech. (Laughter.) Thank her in particular for her thoughtful and kind and measured words about my hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and of course this party, and the efforts we made to get lady candidates for our party to run in the last election. I assure her we will continue that good work.

I would like to point out that it was in recognition of this gracious and kind and thoughtful friendly spirit that at second reading of this bill, when of course we approved of it, that we sent her flowers from this side of the House to that.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We were thrilled to see that this gesture of friendship and respect was reciprocated so well this afternoon, or this morning, by our friend the Minister.

This is a small amendment. My colleague from Point Grey did not labour the point, I feel. But we do feel that even in small things, steps must be taken for equality of the sexes, just as equality of race is a more important matter, perhaps, to some — about which my hon. friend from Point Grey spoke earlier this morning, and very eloquently too. We would urge the government to accept a minor amendment to take care of what we hope will not be a drafting error repeated in the future.

[ Page 796 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment. It gives me just a little concern to see the Minister, in accepting an amendment, being as vitriolic as she was.

One thing that I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is that consumer protection must be meted out in indiscriminatory fashion. As a result, if the dear little Liberals over here are going to need protection on a consumer base — they are consumers just like the rest of us are consumers — and if the attitude of the Minister shall be to the Liberals what it is, strictly because they do not have as many women candidates running in their party, I'm wondering if we can be sure that we will have consumer protection on the broadest base in British Columbia. Or are people going to not receive protection on the basis of how many women they happen to have in their employ? I'm wondering whether we're going to get equal and adequate coverage on every phase…

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

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must respond to the point of order. I believe the point of order was well taken and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment rather than speculating on how the bill might be implemented.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, please. My remarks are in direct retort to the remarks of the Minister. If I'm going to be called out of order in this regard, I don't understand why you would not listen to our pleas for order at the time she was speaking. I insist that you allow me to finish my remarks.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that when no point of order has been raised, I cannot pass judgment on it. However when a point of order is raised, I must pass judgment and that's what I've done. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: My concern is that consumer protection be meted out in the broadest possible base. If it cannot be meted on that base, under the direction of this Minister, be it "he" "she" or "it", then I think we must press for another Minister to handle this portfolio.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 approved with amendment.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would you mind, Mr. Chairman, asking the lady Minister if it's okay if I say a few words, since she seems to be…?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You have the permission of the Chair to speak, that's adequate. You're speaking to section 5.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. I'm glad that you have taken authority back to yourself, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in this particular section there is one particular word that causes me a great deal of concern. It's subsection (b), where it says: "to examine consumer affairs legislation both in Canada and elsewhere." Now, Mr. Chairman, "elsewhere" covers a lot of ground. I want the lady Minister to assure me and the House that she does not plan on jetting around the world to check consumer affairs in other countries.

With this word in here she is given the power and she could in essence, for instance, travel to communist countries to examine the effects of single merchandise on the population of that particular country. She could examine the effects of the production of foodstuffs, which is state controlled, and I know her feelings, by statements that she has previously made, that our system of having too much variety of the same product is not absolutely necessary.

[ Page 797 ]

She could, for instance, travel to a Communist country and come back and say that we don't need a variety of television sets, that the production should be for one particular set and the state, under the department of communications that's being set up, could control the quality of that particular set and that's all we would have: one colour, one size.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. The rest of them would be out of business and there would be no competition to come up with new ideas and develop a better product.

This word "elsewhere." Now if it were going to be that the words "North America" were in there, I could see it. But this "elsewhere" gives this Minister the leeway and the authority to travel anywhere in the world. And knowing as I do how these Ministers on that side of the House love to travel around the world, I could envision the Minister next summer taking a trip around the world, under the authority of this legislation where it says, "to examine in Canada and elsewhere."

I want the Minister, before we pass this section, to assure me that she's not going to go jetting around the world at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia to check how consumer affairs work in state-controlled Communist countries.

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

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman, I think that that's the point. For all too long the average people in this province, the consumers, received absolutely no protection from the previous government. Now that a worthwhile bill is being put before you, you're trying to raise false smoke screens. You're going off Red-baiting.

For years and years you exported millions of tons of copper, of coal, of iron, virtually gave it away as far as the Treasury of this province. Now that we're attempting to pass legislation to protect the consumers, after 20 years of having left them to the avail of the great foreign corporations that were allowed to come in here and exploit the consumers, now that we are passing consumer legislation, you're doing everything you can to block it. And you're going to fail.

But let the world know that this is the first government in this province that has stood up and attempted to pass legislation for the consumers. After the next election that little group will be a great deal smaller, because the consumers are now onto their game.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we had any doubts about this legislation before, we certainly have them now. That rags-to-riches, jet-set Minister who gets up and waves….

AN HON. MEMBER: High-flying Bill.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: And every trip justified and not one trip outside of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You were the highest flier of them all, next to Phil.

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

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well, a $31,000 tax-free income from the taxpayers of British Columbia is not irresponsible, Mr. Chairman? This province can hardly stand up with his year's record of mismanagement of the people's money in this province. And he calls himself responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to both sides of the House to refrain from using inflammatory language, such words as were used by Members on both sides of this House in the last half-hour. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't dream of disturbing this Friday morning. What I would like to do is return to section 5 of this bill. I was not here for second reading, but I must indeed express the concern I feel in once again seeing written into the legislation by this government nothing but authority to carry out authority. We see that this Minister is being given the right to confer any amount of duties, any amount of responsibility to anyone she so chooses. We feel that this is again an irresponsible action on the part of this government.

The Premier of this province asked for this legislation on the basis that he had appointed a high-priced Minister Without Portfolio with nothing to do and that he wanted the authority to give her something to do. What we want to know is: what is she going to do?

All we find in this section is that she has the power to do whatever she wants to; and yet we have no statements from her that can give us any assurance

[ Page 798 ]

and confidence in her ability.

I would be inclined to be much more open-minded about this, because I have seen the Minister Without Portfolio in the House and I know her to be a person of dedicated ideals. I think that we all expected a great deal from her. But when I was in the Interior recently the only comment that got through to the Interior about this bill from this Minister Without Portfolio was that she wasn't going to but she could do a "hatchet job on Eaton's," with not one single fact to substantiate that statement. I did indeed then become concerned and I think the people of this province have reason to be concerned.

Consumer affairs has long been a great political football, a great eyewash. The great Conservative province of Ontario probably has the greatest example of eyewashing the public at their own expense. If the Minister Without Portfolio has studied their legislation, she knows that they have an incredibly expensive department that is doing next-to-nothing for the consumers of Ontario. We do not want this in British Columbia.

We had an example of Beryl "Plump bottom," or Plumptre, or whatever her name was, flying across Canada, making irresponsible statements everywhere — or at first statements that aroused public interest and then turned out to be irresponsible. Through you, Mr. Chairman, a Minister of consumer affairs indeed has a responsibility to the consumers of their jurisdiction. But they have to remember that all people are consumers, that business itself is a consumer. If you want to do a hatchet job and you've got the facts then, Madam, you have my blessing to do it. But be sure you have the facts first. Don't destroy, along with some of the statements made by your party, more than ever the credibility of the people of British Columbia.

I'm not defending Eaton's. The Minister didn't give us any statements as to whether we should be defending them or not. But it was the innuendo without fact. This Minister must above all, in protecting the consumer's rights, not make an inflammatory statement against any consumer or any small business or any large business, unless she can substantiate it, and to do this in order to perpetrate the importance of her department.

I certainly support this Act. But I would issue this strong caution to the Minister and I would say without reservation how very disappointed I was that she pulled a "Plumptre." We've got people rioting, or gathering or meeting and protesting in Ottawa over Mrs. Plumptre's statements. How do we know whether in fact she's sincere, whether she found facts? She has a most credible record for consumers in British Columbia, and overnight she herself is destroyed and the whole effect of that commission, minimal though it was, is depleted even more.

This Minister has a responsibility. While we don't accept the fact that you have blank-cheque legislation before you, we do suggest to you that your responsibility is to move in a responsible manner for all concerned. And where you want to act, if you can show to us as legislators that it's based on fact, then you will have our support. But if you go around making what I can only class as stupid statements like "I could do a hatchet job" on a business in British Columbia, then you will have nothing but our strongest disrespect, contempt, and every effort to have the Minister changed.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the remarks of the previous speaker, I would recommend that she read the Hansard of the debate on second reading. I think in that debate I outlined what direction I thought the department should take. Perhaps I'm not speaking to the section as I should. However, I feel that I should perhaps repeat some of the points I raised at that time.

The language of the bill was couched in such a manner as to permit the study of existing consumer legislation that is on the books, how it can be fitted into the department in an orderly manner, what requires updating. Perhaps some is obsolete, perhaps some is ineffective; how we can make it more effective, more balanced.

Answering the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), no, I have no plans to go to any Communist country to study their consumer affairs. In fact, I received a note while this was going on. I know not whence it came but it says, "Have they got $1.49 Day at GUM Stores?" I doubt it very much. I believe that section 5(b) is pretty specific. It says, "to examine consumer affairs legislation" — legislation — "both in Canada and elsewhere…."

Now the staff I have and many, many interested people have sent me legislation from all over the world concerning consumer affairs. Some of the best consumer legislation I've ever seen is coming out of Australia. In fact, I have an Act in my briefcase right now, Fair Trade Practices Act, that is before the parliament of Australia.

The United Kingdom has some interesting legislation. West Germany has some interesting ways of solving consumer complaints; Sweden does also. We have been able to assemble quite a body of legislation from different jurisdictions, and how they have handled it. We're looking at some of the interesting things that are going on in some of the American states. I believe it is the State of Oregon…it's a minor thing but it's an irritant to many consumers; there are unsolicited phone calls such as, "if you can tell the state wildflower, you have just won five free dance lessons at the Arthur Murray studio" — or something of that nature. You've all had these phone calls.

In Oregon they have a state law that requires that

[ Page 799 ]

if it is a phone call soliciting business or an offer of services of some sort, they must identify themselves within 15 seconds. I think this is something that we could examine and see if it would be applicable in British Columbia, or if the people of British Columbia would like this thing. I know a lot of people are annoyed by phone calls from real estate companies: "Would you like to sell your home?" — et cetera. They find it very irritating.

Consumer affairs people around the world seem to have a brotherhood, sisterhood of communicating with each other and passing along information to each other. We do this mainly by mail. We don't necessarily have to go and talk to each other. Sometimes it is helpful.

It was extremely helpful last May when I accompanied the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to the Consumer Ministers' conference in Quebec City. This was most interesting because we set a direction there at that time whereby the 10 provinces would work together to create uniformity in our legislation so that the manufacturers, the dealers, the wholesalers and the consumers all knew what the ground rules were. This would benefit all sectors of the economy.

This is the sort of thing. I don't plan to jet off anywhere. I am planning a personal trip to England next spring at my own expense to take my mother home for the first time in 53 years. I have an opportunity, fortunately, to meet with the Minister of Consumer Affairs of the United Kingdom. That happened by accident. One of the MPs that visited us recently is the parliamentary secretary, so he is going to arrange an appointment. I will be able, on my own time and everything, to meet and perhaps discuss with him some of the things that the United Kingdom is doing in this regard.

I feel as a consumer services person that I must be an example — of saving money, of saving resources of this province — and I most certainly assure the Hon. Members I will endeavour to do this to the utmost.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the Minister for assuring the House of her intentions in this regard. I didn't mean to check into your personal life or where you're going, but I certainly appreciate the assurances. I would certainly hope that the other Members of the cabinet who are in the House today listened intently and will take an example from you.

There is one other section, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask the Minister to explain to me, and again assure the House….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is it a section that has been passed or is it one that we are coming to? Perhaps if you wait until we come to it….

MR. PHILLIPS: We're talking about section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'm saying that there is one other subsection under section 5 and it's subsection (d). The subsection reads, "to disseminate information and educate the consumers with respect to consumer affairs matters."

The Minister in second reading stated that she was planning on setting up a group of educators who could go to the schools. I would like the Minister again to assure me that the education is going to be with regard to consumer legislation and the rights to consumers only, not with regard to specific merchandise. Because I think you could get into a very, very delicate situation if you in any way, shape or form start advising the public as to what merchandise is good and what merchandise is not.

I agree wholeheartedly with your concept of educating young people in the schools with regard to their rights as a consumer, with regard to the laws of contracts and their rights there, because there are a lot of people who do not understand their rights. I agree that this should be taught. They should be taught some business sense with regard to purchasing and the effects of interest and credit. I agree with this. I think it's an excellent idea the Minister has.

But please assure me and the House that you're not going to get involved in telling people what merchandise is good and what merchandise is not good. Because you have already, as I discussed with you in second reading, been making statements about certain large corporations. I would not want to see you get involved in saying that one piece of merchandise is better than another, or that you should stay away from something. Unless the article is completely faulty and dangerous…then we all have a right to expose it.

Would you just assure me that you are going to educate people with regard to their rights under the law and leave it go at that?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I'm afraid I cannot give you that assurance, Hon. Member, for this reason: one of the greatest aspects of consumerism is quality of goods — quality for money. I think that this also has to be taught in the schools. I think perhaps that one of the best devices in the world to teach quality or to be able to compare, say, one particular brand of a product against another brand — because there's such a multiplicity of brands on the market — is to use such things as Consumer Report, and Canadian Consumer magazine.

I don't think these vehicles have enough visibility. Not enough people are aware of the access to these excellent and very neutral magazines and books.

[ Page 800 ]

Hopefully in the educational process I would like to see people become aware that these things exist, and that when in doubt, check.

Not every one of us is an expert on, say, television sets or automobiles or washing machines; we just simply are not. We have to rely on the advice of perhaps a salesman. I have found that usually in rural communities you can pretty well rely on the local merchant because he must remain friends with his customers. He must stay there; his livelihood is there; therefore he will serve his customers very well.

In the larger metropolitan areas I think it's been discovered already that they don't have to be quite so careful. So I think that one does have to teach quality. If it requires naming a particular brand or model, or something of that nature, then it will be done. It may also require it on a basis of safety. Now we have seen in the past that some television sets were ruled unsafe. Recently there have been some sets that caught fire long after they were turned off and caused conflagrations in people's homes.

In fact, I was informed of one very recently where their set was picked up by the manufacturer because of this particular problem, and it was replaced by the manufacturer. So there's a safety factor involved too. All these are a part of consumerism and I think that in the educational process this is most necessary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now the Minister really has me worried because….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Liar.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, Mr. Premier, this happens to be a very, very important matter and the Minister is taking unto herself….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't like the Premier trying to crash through, rush through, this legislation. We're discussing something very, very important. We're discussing a principle and we're discussing a very, very dangerous area that this department is heading for, and I'm concerned about it, and I mean it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's sweeping powers, it's vague, it's the heavy hand of state socialism. Now what else do you have to say about it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, if you were half as intelligent as you sometimes think you are, Mr. Premier, you'd be a lot further ahead.

What I am concerned about — and I wish the Minister would have told me that she wasn't going to enter this area because in my wildest dreams I didn't think that she would. What you're letting yourself open to is the exercise of pressure by some of these large corporations to put their products through you — to get to give them their stamp of approval.

There have been cases in the past where consumer affairs magazines have either given their stamp of approval to a product or not depending on the amount of advertising that that particular manufacturer puts in the magazine. This is what you're leaving yourself open to. It's a very serious matter.

Now you talk about safety. We have the Canadian Standards Association that looks after the safety of most of the merchandise that is involved. They've been doing an excellent job and they're continually doing research.

Just a couple of years ago your own Department of Public Works put out new safety standards for the trailer manufacturers and camper manufacturers, and they did an excellent job. Their standards in British Columbia are probably higher than they are anywhere in the North American continent. They are the experts who will have to decide that.

I don't think, Madam Minister, in all due respect to you, that you can go out with your department and say whether an item is safe or unsafe. It really concerns me. You could be open to graft if a particular — and I'm going to follow this right to its limit: if a particular manufacturing company that you go to at election time for campaign funds doesn't happen to want to contribute to your campaign, you could say, "Well, we'll certainly see that the people of this province are educated against using your product."

I'm not saying they could, but what I'm saying is that by doing this the Minister is taking unto herself this possibility. I don't like to see her have to be in this situation. I'm as interested in protecting the rights of people as anybody, and I am interested in people knowing their rights so far as consumer legislation is concerned. But I can't say that I want to pass a piece of legislation that's going to give the Minister the right to go into the schools and teach our children whether a particular product is better than another. Because you're leaving yourself wide open to numerous pressures from many sources, and you could eventually find yourself in many legal battles.

If I were a manufacturer and had the Canadian Standards Association stamp of approval on it for safety — just because you don't like me or I don't happen to be of your political faith, you could go around and put the stamp of disapproval on my product. Where would I end up? Some cases like this have happened in the past. Unfortunately I haven't taken the time to do research on it, but this is the

[ Page 801 ]

type of area that you are leaving yourself wide open to.

I want to warn you again that I am against it and I will be watching you very, very closely — and what you say. If there is one case where you use your power against a particular company, maybe sometimes even unknowingly, you will have to answer to this Legislature.

So I want you to be very, very careful and just remember that there are safety standards — the Canadian Standards Association. And in many other areas — your own Department of Public Works with regard to electrical wiring, gas-fitting and so forth — these products have to be approved. So I wish you would please assure me that you're going to use a tremendous amount of discretion in this area, Madam Minister.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Speaking on this section, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister-designate, I'm still concerned about the comment that was made at second reading with respect to this feeling of "let me at them," this missionary zeal, this "I can hardly wait to get my hands around the Eaton's throat," as an example. That worries me.

I hope that the Minister in her enthusiasm for her new assignment will show some restraint and will avoid that kind of comment because I don't really think that helps the department which is proposed here; I don't think it helps relationships between the government and very large and responsible organizations such as Eaton's for the Minister to say — and I don't have Hansard in front of me, but as closely as I can recall — "I'm not going to do it, but I could do a hatchet job on Eaton's."

As the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mentioned, it is really not a very responsible way in which to launch the department. If Eaton's or some other national organization selling goods and services to people in British Columbia deserves the kind of criticism that is implied in that statement, then I would hope that the Minister would get in touch with the company concerned before getting out the hatchet.

I think that we have another lady running around the country with a rather blunted hatchet and I'm not sure that that's serving any useful purpose.

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister well. We need the department. But we need the department operated with considerable restraint and a very strong degree of responsibility. I would like the Minister at the appropriate time, if she can, to somehow explain away the hatchet job statement that we had in second reading because I find it very disquieting indeed.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to go back once again to the Minister's statements. I don't mean this critically, but when I asked for an explanation on the statement that the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked about with regard to these innuendoes against a major corporation or responsible corporation in British Columbia, you said, "Look it up in Hansard."

Now, through you, Mr. Chairman, to you Madam Minister Without Portfolio at this time, it's the damage that is done now and the damage that will be done in the future by statements of any Minister that will be misinterpreted by the media or picked up by the media because of a catch phrase. Am I to go home to the constituents I represent and when they ask me about this, say, "Go and read the Hansard"? The answer just is not adequate.

Obviously the Minister is on the hook in this area and we are all deeply concerned, and nobody wants to bang your head against the wall, through you, Mr. Chairman, but let us assure you of the need to use caution in the future and to learn from this experience. I agree with the Member for Saanich and the Islands: give us an explanation of why you made these statements against this particular company.

I also was not reassured by the Minister's statement in relation to the statements made by my colleague from the South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) on what authority you are going to use in your educational programme. I'm concerned about in the schools, but I'm also concerned about the general public. You did mention Consumer Report and my colleague has mentioned some of the very specific organizations that set standards and the pitfalls here, but what bothers me also is what other authorities this department and yourself as Minister are going to use, One of the major problems we have in society today is the self-styled expert. We have them in the media, we have them in the government, we have them in the area of pollution control, we have them in agriculture — people who've taken one little thing and blown it up and have sold themselves as experts on this, in fact, when you examine the whole situation, it's not that at all.

If the Minister were to use these self-styled experts, it might be very false information indeed. What is the Minister going to use as a criterion in deciding who her authorities will be?

This whole matter of recourse to the courts comes into this bill very, very definitely. In relation to the Minister's hatchet job on Eaton's, any statement made in this House leaves any person immune for any type of court action. It also is not possible in British Columbia to sue the Crown.

Now if the Minister is out and makes a misleading or jeopardizing statement about a product or a company, big or small, which in turn is a consumer, and this is false, there is very little recourse that can

[ Page 802 ]

be taken by that offended individual if, in fact, that statement is wrong.

They can take the Minister to court for this statement, but who is going to pay the Minister's costs? Is it to be the Crown, the taxpayers of British Columbia, for an irresponsible statement that was made, not only if you are Minister but if someone else is Minister? Are you going to open up an avenue whereby, if any of your employees or you, yourself, as Minister or any future Minister makes irresponsible statements, there will be recourse to the offended product and its consumer purchaser?

I would cite the classic example that I was involved in, when this branch was first started in the government, over the price of milk. The branch was dedicated to protecting the consumer. A letter came in concerning why you couldn't buy milk in volume. A position was taken by the branch which was extremely detrimental to the agricultural industry and to the milk producers in British Columbia, and also contrary to the Act.

Now, this was a case of a person trying to do a proper job in the context of what they were charged with doing, but in fact led to tremendous conflict and was an unjustifiable move on the part of the department. This problem was solved because we got the consumer affairs officer in touch with the Milk Board and they got the overall picture. His reply, which was still in the best interests of the consumer, was much different.

This was an internal problem and there was no thought or need for court action. But this could happen in an external area and what will be the recourse for these people in relation to damage to their product, damage to their reputation, maybe at times damage to a consumer's reputation, recognizing that if they are big, they've got money to fight you and if they're small, they haven't? I would like some assurance on this in relation to the information that you are going to give to the public.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think many of the Members are anxious to hear from the Minister before this section passes because it is quite critical how the powers in this section will be handled.

I apologize for not having been here and been aware that the Minister had named a corporation in British Columbia and indicated that she was prepared to show restraint in not doing a hatchet-job on that particular corporation, because clearly by implication, at least in the Minister's mind, that corporation is guilty of unethical consumer practices. I don't think a large corporation's neck is likely to be wrung by any Minister of this House.

Nevertheless, vicious attacks can do damage — except to opposition Members of the Legislature — and therefore there is some potential harm that can be done by statements in the House. Ministers are expected to back up any statements that they make with legitimate facts or to apologize for the statements that are made.

I think the Minister owes it to this House, owes it to the people of British Columbia and owes it to the corporation named either to substantiate the statement which she made in this House or to withdraw unequivocally any suggestion that that corporation was guilty of any wrong-doing by means of a public apology. I think if the Minister is prepared to do either one or the other, then we will have some reassurance that, if this section is passed, the portfolio will be handled in a responsible way in the future.

So, Mr. Chairman, through you, I hope that the Minister will either correct the record with an apology or give us information as to the wrong-doing of this particular corporation.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, the information I gave the House was correct. I'm wearing the very shoes that it happened to; I'm not wearing the two slips that it happened to. It was intemperate language on my part, I do concur. I also concur that I had merely to take the merchandise back and Eaton's would have replaced it. I have been told since that they would have come and picked it up if I was annoyed.

But the point I was trying to make was that I'm one of thousands of working women who simply do not have the time to take a slip back because the straps disintegrate the first time you put it on, or to take a pair of shoes back the week after you buy them to have the buckle replaced. These are constant little annoyances to which you say, "Oh, to heck with it; I'll fix it myself or I'll take off the other buckle."

I appreciate the fact that Eaton's has built their business on money-back guarantees: "Satisfaction or money back, " and it is cross-country. I appreciate that, but still and all, from the mail that I have received, I think I was expressing to some degree some of the feeling in the community. This is not only true of that particular store, but of the quality of merchandise anywhere: somehow it is just not what it should be.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: This is it. This is something else that has to be sorted out: the responsibility of the dealer; the responsibility of the manufacturer. We are running into this problem and I would say that all provinces are running into this problem. I discussed that in my opening remarks at second reading in reference to warranties and the Green Paper that is now being circulated from the Ontario consumer Minister. All the provinces of Canada are currently

[ Page 803 ]

reading it with great interest.

I believe that's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: Certainly I, as an individual, appreciate the Minister's candour in admitting an intemperate statement. We appreciate it and we accept it. We hope that it will be learned and we do feel still that damage has been done to Eaton's in a manner that the Minister has now herself brought out. Their policy — and I'm not defending them; they may have some bad policies — has always been to try to give a customer satisfaction. Your complaint really was not with Eaton's, your complaint was with the manufacturer of the ladies lingerie that you purchased and the manufacturer of the shoes.

This is a very important area that does have to be sorted out because I'm sure it's beyond the realm of thought that a reputable dealer who takes reasonable precautions can, in fact, test every pair of shoes that they handle or every fishing rod or anything else they buy from reputable producers. Certainly the major companies do, and they in turn offer satisfaction.

So we want to leave with you again our appreciation for your candour on this. We hope that the media will be very generous on this point in not leaving the impression that in this particular instance a responsible department store in British Columbia was, in fact, deserving of a black eye. We ask the Minister to be very aware of the manufacturing aspect in terms of responsibility and, again, as I say, we appreciate her candour.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say one short word here. I want to point out again to the lady Minister that exactly what I have been warning her about in educating with regard to merchandise has already happened. In a very innocent way you have condemned a department store. You could have done irreparable damage to, that department store.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Ah, come on, get off this.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish that if the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has got a speech to make on consumerism, he would stand in the Legislature and ask the Chairman if he could speak and make his speech. If the Attorney General, who has got so much to say about this ….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. Well, get up and say what you've got to say.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister….

MRS. JORDAN: Don't defend her; she's doing fine.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm defending what she said in terms of the shoddy goods that have been flooding the marketplaces of the world in an age when the consumer is being exploited by poorly-made goods, whether it's in the automobile field, consumer articles of all kinds….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're backing up on it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. And this Minister, therefore….

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Minister does a public service when she complains…

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't lose your blood pressure, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …about the kind of shoddy goods that are placed on the consumers of Canada. There's got to be public education and there have to be public warnings from the Minister and from this government with respect to these goods if we're ever going to get back to goods that embody some of the craftsmanship of an earlier age.

MR. PHILLIPS: She should warn the public about you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mass production, shoddy goods, sometimes dangerous goods are something that all of us in this Legislature have to speak up about and not be afraid that we are engaging in free speech and that our comments and our remarks are forthright, that our warnings are very clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: But let's rap the right knuckles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, sure. This is the complaint — shoddy goods — and I applaud the Minister for the action she is taking in this respect. It is public education and it is for the public good.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the Attorney General passed another cloud of motherhood over the Legislature, clothed in goodness….

[ Page 804 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask for the courtesy of being able to recognize the speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I say, the Attorney General got up and brought in another cloud of motherhood over the Legislature. I realized all this and the Attorney General is smarter…. I give the Attorney General credit for having more intelligence — and he knows the point I am talking about. If he had stayed in and paid attention to the whole debate, he would know exactly what I am talking about. I am warning the lady Minister against taking one piece of merchandise and educating people of this province against it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't warn the Minister. She is defending consumers throughout the province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, sure. You talk about all this shoddy merchandise — you know that there is only about 5 per cent of the merchandise ever sold that comes even near to being shoddy and yet you start talking about this motherhood of all this shoddy merchandise. You would think that this world hadn't progressed at all.

I want to tell you that over the past 10 years there has been more advancement made in putting out good merchandise than there has in the previous 100 years. There has been a lot of good work done. When we should have had the department of consumer affairs was back in the first 12 years after World War II. That's when we should have had a department of consumer affairs.

I want to tell you there has been a fantastic amount of progress made in putting good merchandise on the market. Now, after all this has happened, we bring in this "oh, everything is shoddy and we are going to educate the public against one product against another."

As I started to say before I was so rudely interrupted by the Attorney General, what I have been warning the Minister about has already, in essence, happened. Because by a slip of the tongue, she got up and condemned not any particular piece of merchandise but a whole department store — one that has built its, reputation in North America for satisfaction or money freely refunded. She has done irreparable damage to the reputation of Timothy Eaton's. I think she should get up and apologize — not just withdraw and say she used a little indiscretion. She should get up and apologize and say that it is a good department store.

I don't know, maybe the slip she took home was too small and broke the straps. I don't know; we don't know all sides of the story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, please. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: We have to go by what the Minister says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Well, Mr. Chairman, it moves back and forth. Thank you very much.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm certainly glad to see you standing on your feet instead of speaking across the floor.

HON. MR. COCKE: I would like to make a couple of points here. One point is that this government and this House should never gag anybody. The fact of the matter is: the Minister of consumer affairs is to do a job in British Columbia; she can't do a job if she goes around gagged, and this Member over here wants to gag her. You know, it's an interesting situation, Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest how frivolous this Member has been treating this whole question.

Fifteen or 20 minutes ago, an hour ago, or whatever it was, he supported a resolution that changed this legislation. Since then, he keeps calling this Minister "that lady Minister." Now, what kind of a situation is this? Discrimination right here in the face of having just passed a resolution that wouldn't indicate sex. Now, for heaven's sake!

MR. PHILLIPS: Is your wife in the gallery?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, the word that has caused the greatest problem dealing with quality is the word "guarantee." It means absolutely nothing without specifics — the Attorney General is indicating that he is agreeing with my remarks. It means absolutely nothing without the worth of the guarantor being indicated.

Now, this is a word that seriously crippled the economy of B.C. in one specific instance. This was in the instance of Commonwealth Trust Company. The criticisms of the word "guarantee" were raised by the former Attorney General (Mr. Bonner); they were raised by Mr. Peterson when he was Attorney General; now we hear the present Attorney General also putting his hands up and saying: "Yes, by golly, we've got to do something about it."

Yet, absolutely nothing has been done to regulate the extremely loose use of that particular word. I think until such time as that is done, the public can continue to expect many, many pitfalls arising from it.

I suppose the Midas Muffler people have done a better job than any of the politicians bringing to the

[ Page 805 ]

attention of the general public the absolute worthlessness of the word "guarantee" unless a person is aware of the worth of the guarantor and of the actual specifics of the guarantee.

Also, dealing with the Attorney General's remarks: the springing to the assistance of the lady cabinet Minister — she's the type of lady, I think, who really doesn't want to have male assistance. Also the Minister of Health and Hospital Insurance is springing to her assistance. I don't think she really needs all that help. I think she is able to get by on her own hook.

It makes me rather wonder in the Attorney General's remarks about shoddy goods as to whether or not the proliferation of shoddy goods on the marketplaces of the world have come about in direct relation to the proliferation of socialistic governments throughout the world. I am very glad to hear that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) agrees with that, because I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the best goods in the world have been produced by the capitalistic countries, make no mistake of that. And none of you people would be here but for capitalism. You're enjoying the fruits of capitalism, my friends. Make no mistake about that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, we are debating section 5, are we not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would appeal to the Hon. Members to keep their remarks reasonably relevant to section 5.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Minister would mind considering a couple of questions. section 5 is for purposes and functions of your department. In the light of what the Hon. Attorney General has said about vast quantities of shoddy merchandise being available, does the Minister agree with that statement? If she does, is it her intention, through her department, to establish some kind of testing bureau where merchandise made available for sale in this province will need to get some approval before it can be placed on the shelves of stores and available to customers? If we have all this shoddy merchandise, then there is only one way that you can protect the consumer — first of all test it, then warn them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to be a little quieter so that we may hear the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't care whether they hear; I want the Minister to hear what I am saying.

If that's your intention, I would like to know if we are going to have a research department, and all shirts and socks and everything are going to go through and come out with a stamp on it.

Secondly, would the Minister please indicate whether she's going to have an investigative branch — people who will be moving about this province snooping, investigating what is available in the stores and whether or not whatever regulations her department may put forward are being carried out? We know this is already done by the federal department which has a responsibility in this area. They check into advertising, misleading and others.

My third question is the extent to which she will use the facilities of the federal department or what arrangements there have been for coordination of her departmental role with the federal department.

HON. MS. YOUNG: As far as product-testing goes, Mr. Chairman, we have done considerable thinking on this point. We realize that attempting to build a testing facility is quite an expansion; it's quite an investment. We have thought that when we see the need to investigate or to test a particular product, to seek out a private laboratory or private testing agency or use the B.C. Research Council facilities to do the testing that we think is required.

We only anticipate doing this kind of testing where we will be receiving a large number of complaints about a big-ticket item or an item involving safety, an item that appears to have dangerous features about it and may need some testing to ascertain whether it is dangerous or not.

As far as investigating, yes, I plan to have an investigative staff, but not particularly to go around and snoop. We may run across problems where we have to investigate whether a particular door-to-door organization is licensed or may not be operating in the best interests of consumers; we might want to know who the principals are of that company; we may want to know their techniques, how they're going about it. There are many areas where we would be using investigators. I don't think we would be going into stores — although I've seen it done in the States — where the laboratory goes in and picks merchandise off the shelf, buys it, takes it out and tests it. We do not anticipate doing anything of that nature.

We have had some communication with the federal department; we plan to set up a good liaison with them. We have not as yet been able to do so because we haven't had a department. When we do have a department we will definitely be working closely with the federal department, hopefully complementing each other rather than crossing each other's trails and duplicating each other's efforts.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this section, I have another phase of consumerism that I

[ Page 806 ]

would like to discuss with the Minister with regard to education.

Under the previous administration there was a law passed in this province prohibiting the advertisement of a certain product; and that certain product was tobacco. This great people's government, which is so interested in protecting the consumers against shoddy merchandise — one of the first pieces of legislation to pass in this House when they came to power was to the repeal of an Act that banned the advertisement of tobacco.

This great pious government stands here and is going to pass consumer legislation to protect the people of this province against what they call "shoddy merchandise."

I would recommend to the Minister and to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), whose department has to look after the effects of tobacco and alcohol, that the two of them get together and get a real education programme going with regard to tobacco. And what a shoddy product it is.

HON. MR. COCKE: Watch TV at news time.

MR. PHILLIPS: This noon? How can I?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if you really had the courage of your convictions you would re-enact legislation to ban the advertisement of tobacco. The Minister says, "Ha, ha, ha, " because it doesn't fit in with his political aspirations. He's afraid the press might turn on him. That's the whole reason, the entire reason, that you wiped out the legislation to ban the advertisement of tobacco; that's the entire reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: And if you were so interested in the consumers of this province, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, you would lead a crusade to ban the advertisement of tobacco.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section that he is discussing in terms of educating the consumer and not to propose legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Minister to assure me that she is going to go on an educational campaign in the schools, on the radio, in the papers, and to whatever media is available to her in her new department and spend huge sums of money to tell the people of this province what a shoddy product tobacco is, how it affects your health, and really do something that can be…. The Minister shakes her head. No, she's not going to do that. No, she's going to use her department to educate the people against buying non-union merchandise, merchandise made by non-union….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's the matter, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the need now for my button, which I'm not going to use because it doesn't seem to be the rule of the House. However, when I wish to make a point of order it is the requirement of the Member to be silent and wait until I make the point. So would the Member be seated?

The remarks he has made are not strictly relevant to this section for several reasons; one of which is that he is proposing legislation — he is speaking to advise the Crown and so forth. The main thing is to consider the wording of this particular section and the import in it and to make suggestions, perhaps. But I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks strictly relevant to this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to dispute your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not really sure of what remarks I made that are not relevant to this section. Would you explain what remarks I made that are not relevant to this section? I'd like to become better educated in the rules of the House, and if you lay it out for me I'll certainly take it and put it in my memoir of references that I shouldn't use. Would you explain it to me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Member to speak to the section and carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: You ruled me out of order, Mr. Chairman. And all I'm asking you is to tell me what phrases I uttered that were out of order. Now, I want you to tell me. It is your duty to tell me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I must strongly protest the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) whom I assume is acting as House Leader, instructing the Chair in this debate. On three occasions in the last seven minutes I have seen her instruct this Chair to stifle debate on a matter of urgent public concern. (Laughter.) Well, if it isn't urgent, why do you want to spend $50,000 a year in creating it?

Then she just now turned to you, Mr. Chairman, and said, "Carry on the debate." Now, I would like to know who, in fact, is Chairman of this House and who, in fact, is in control of this debate.

[ Page 807 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The advice that I take….

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I don't think there is any Member in this House who has not called order, and that is exactly what I was doing; not as House Leader but as a Member of the House who is losing her patience over the type of debate that's taking place.

I have heard the Hon. Member across the floor many times call order, and that is what I was doing. I have a right to do that as a Member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MRS. JORDAN: We are quite willing to accept this. But she did not call order; she instructed the Chair, and she has instructed him three times.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member be seated? Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: That's a point of order. Are we no longer allowed to make a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! No person will speak without the recognition of the Chair. No person will speak without recognition of the Chair.

Now, I would make just a point, and that is that it has been the custom of this House…. I would request that the two people that are standing be seated.

It has been the custom of this House for any Member at any time to say "order," if they feel that there is some point of order, to perhaps draw the attention of the Chairman or the Speaker to a particular point of order. It is then up to the judgment of the Chairman as to whether, in fact, the point of order exists.

Now, so far as I can recall, that is what took place; there was certainly no direction given to me as to what I should do. The counsel on either side of me has offered me advice, which is their duty, and this advice I have responded to to some extent. But I certainly have not responded to any Member of the House in terms of the judgments that I make. I take my advice from counsel or simply make my own judgment.

In regard to the point of order that was raised when I ruled the Member out of order, it is not required to the Chair to state in what way the person has strayed away from debate necessarily, but simply to request that he give attention to being relevant to the section under consideration. It was my judgment that he was straying away from the point that we were discussing. I was simply requesting that he give attention to this matter and return to a relevant discussion of this particular section.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The Member for South Peace River had the floor…

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has been instructed to rise.

MR. SMITH: …and was asked to take his seat by yourself, Sir.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'm rising on a point of order.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to introduce a bill, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. I don't think you need leave.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In introducing the bill I'd like to emphasize the remarks….

MR. SPEAKER: You're not going to have second reading now, are you? (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: No, just to emphasize the remarks of Gov. Evans earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I'd like leave of the House to introduce a bill intituled The Environmental Bill of Rights Act.

Leave granted.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 79 intituled The Environmental Bill of Rights Act.

Motion approved.

[ Page 808 ]

Bill 79 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved. The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.