[ Page 4031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

Mr. Lockstead –– 4032

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

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

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 4033

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4033

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

On the amendment to section 1 –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

On section 1 as amended –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

On section 3 –– 4035

Mr. Hanson

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 5 –– 4036

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Hanson

On section 7 –– 4037

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 12 –– 4037

Mr. Hanson

On section 11 –– 4038

Mr. Passarell

On section 19 as amended –– 4038

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Hanson

Division on section 19 as amended –– 4039

On the amendment to section 37 –– 4040

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Hanson

Mrs. Wallace

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4045

Ms. Brown –– 4046

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4053

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 4054

Division on second reading –– 4055

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

Mr. Ritchie –– 4055

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

Mr. Davis –– 4055

Appendix –– 4056

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to tell you and the members that I have constituents in the gallery today: Mrs. Marion Muir, her son Mark and her father, Mr. Edwin Floata.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have in the gallery today two residents of Britannia Beach, Mr. Bob Anderson and Helen Coulas. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm pleased to introduce a constituent — and perhaps more than one — of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). A good friend of mine from many years back, Mr. Alan Clegg, is here with some family members and visitors from England. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

CLERK ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Before the motion is put the member must first seek the floor to make a motion. At this time, hon. member, we have called for the introduction of bills.

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

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

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

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I would ask for order from all hon. members so that the Speaker can hear my point of order clearly. In view of that standing order, I ask the Speaker to rule that the division bells be rung again in compliance with that standing order, so that various members of cabinet can be present for question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the member's point, it is not the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that members be in their places. That is an undertaking by each and every hon. member of this House.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, before engaging in what appears to be the next point — and far be it for the Chair to rule on a matter in anticipation — I must, nonetheless, caution the member, before he maybe thinks of the motion he might possibly be putting forward, that such a motion could very well be entertained as a breach of the rules of this House and be entertained as such by the Speaker. Hon. member, I'm sure that's not the position that the member would like to put the Chair in.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to make any motion that would be a breach of the rules. Certainly, in anticipating the next step, as Mr. Speaker has done, any appeal of the Speaker's ruling, of course, is never a breach of the rules; it's always in order. So if Mr. Speaker's ruling is that my point is not to be entertained, then I appeal your ruling to the House.

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

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, rule one way or the other that the division bells can or cannot be rung to have cabinet ministers in their seats for question period.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member across the way seeks only to maintain decorum in this House and would never put forward a mischievous or frivolous point while standing on a point of order. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that a ruling can be considered when there are rules already written in our order books. Those rules are clearly there for all of us to see and they don't necessarily require an interpretation by the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, on the point of order raised by the first member for Vancouver Centre, there is neither precedent nor tradition for the action that the member requested the Speaker to take. However, Mr. Clerk, possibly....

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

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

Oral Questions

FALSE ACCUSATION OF CHILD ABUSE

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Earlier this year it was discovered that the government had been keeping records of frivolous and unsubstantiated complaints against teachers. Now it has been reported that the same approach has been adopted by the Ministry of Human Resources child abuse program, and that files of unsubstantiated complaints are kept for seven years. In order to avoid this unwarranted intrusion into family life, has the minister decided to make legislative provision for victims of unsubstantiated complaints and to have these complaints expunged from the record?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to respond to the hon. member for Burnaby–Edmonds by saying that I have asked my ministry to anticipate the problem that would arise if someone were to phone in and give a report on child abuse and neglect that was unsubstantiated and found to

[ Page 4032 ]

be untrue. I have asked my ministry to look into that. I will have to report back to the House on further action that may be taken in that regard.

However, in response to the member, may I explain at the same time that I believe the member is referring to a newspaper article printed in the past two days, in which it was claimed that our ministry was very aggressively investigating a complaint that was phoned to the Helpline for Children, and that the complaint was lodged on the basis that there were two children who were being mistreated. May I say that in that newspaper clipping the name of the family was not used. Therefore what I share with you today is not a breach of confidentiality, and I am able to give you, in very vague terms, something about the background of that case.

I want you to know that the investigation that my staff carried out was done because of a phone call to the Helpline. The telephone accusation of child abuse has been found to be essentially false and malicious, but there were adequate grounds for investigating the complaint — grounds that emanated from a complaint that had been lodged by a school principal in earlier years in another city. Because of that allegation, which had been lodged by a different party altogether in another time and place, we and our staff felt it very necessary to follow up on that complaint.

I'd also like to share with the House the fact that in child-abuse and child-neglect cases very often our staff does act on the concerns that are expressed. They always follow up a Helpline cry for help. Very often in looking at cases of actual child abuse, a series of things has happened over a number of years where child abuse is actually found to be a fact of life. It is these little things that add up over the years that have led people in our ministry to be able to find child abuse before the child becomes a statistic and is no longer living. The Helpline for Children has been very successful, but there is no question that we have had some calls that have not been well-founded calls. But I would share with the House too that those calls that have come in that have been frivolous or mischievous have been investigated and my ministry has dealt with them very professionally.

MS. BROWN: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I will try to be a little bit more brief than the minister was in her response. In February of this year I brought to the minister's attention a confidential report which came into my possession from her ministry dealing with this. On March 22 I received a letter from the minister which said: "The ministry's family and children's services division is in the process of reviewing the reporting system and the use of the registry in order to ensure that unsubstantiated complaints are removed." I was very surprised by that newspaper article which showed that the minister had not followed through on that commitment which she made in March.

However, my supplementary is to the Attorney-General. There have been reports that with no more information than a crank or malicious call parents and children have been subjected to a humiliating investigation including medical examination and review by the Ministry of Human Resources and medical officials. Have you, Mr. Attorney-General, decided to investigate the procedures used by the Ministry of Human Resources to ensure that they are consistent with the due process of law?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. The information which the member has provided and requested today is the first notice that I have had of this concern. If the member will be good enough to provide me with particulars of her concern I'd be pleased to make certain that the legislative provisions are reviewed.

TAKEOVER OF RAYONIER CANADA LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. With respect to the minister's examinations of the proposed takeover of Rayonier, has the minister decided to require the companies involved to maintain the existing level of employment at Port Alice and other Rayonier operations before he gives his approval of the takeover?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the examination of the pros and cons of this takeover are just beginning. Of course the continuation of employment in the various communities will be of prime concern to us.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give the House the assurance that the level of employment at Port Alice in particular will be maintained, as was agreed in the TFL granted in 1950, which ensured that about 80 percent of the pulpwood from TFL 6 would go to Port Alice? Will the minister ensure that that operation will continue prior to giving any approval? I appreciate there are a lot of other considerations, but this is one assurance that we want at this point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the companies that are taking over ITT Rayonier's operations will obviously be coming forth with their plans for the plants. I can't guarantee the member that the plants will continue as they are. As the member probably knows, there has been some suggestion that perhaps the plants need updating and modernization, and this, in itself, could have effects on employment. But we're interested in the efficient use of the Crown resource and the maintenance of all possible employment by that use.

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

I have another question to the minister. Has the minister decided whether the current in-depth analysis of Rayonier's management of TFL 6 will continue?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the change of ownership of tree-farm licence No. 6 will not change our investigation. That investigation will continue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary to the same minister. Will the minister now tell this House that there will be a full public inquiry into this so-called Rayonier takeover?

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

NON-TEACHING SUPPORT
SERVICES FOR BLIND STUDENTS

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the Minister of Education. A daughter of a constituent is blind and attending the regular school system. She's moving from junior to senior high school this September and needs the assistance of a

[ Page 4033 ]

person who can give her mobility training. I'm informed that such assistance is not available because this program has been frozen by Treasury Board. Since the minister's policy is to ensure that all handicapped students capable of benefiting from public school instruction shall be given the non-teaching support services they need, I would like to ask the minister what steps he has decided to take to get the program unfrozen by Treasury Board, as school starts in about two weeks' time.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to thank the member for giving me notice of this matter. I can assure him that this program is not frozen in Treasury Board, but it's in Treasury Board. I will get it through Treasury Board.

Interjections.

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

I want to ask a supplementary question of the Premier, who is president of the council. Could the minister ask his Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is responsible for Treasury Board, to use all possible speed in getting this unfrozen, because parents with blind children have to know within the next two weeks what is going to happen in respect to this program. It's absolutely essential that they know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we would be engaging in a very new area if we were to allow questions for a minister to address to, for example, the Treasury Board. I think that on that basis I will have to rule the particular wording of that question out of order. I will entertain a rewording of the question by the member.

MR. LEVI: I have a supplementary question to the Premier. As the president of the council, could he speak to his Minister of Finance in respect to unfreezing...? The Treasury Board is frozen and we need to get an answer, presumably through the Premier. He has the power to do this; he is the president of the council. I would ask the Premier if he will speak to the Minister of Finance about expediting this matter. Can he do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not sure that the statement from the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam is correct, but certainly I'll speak to the Minister of Finance. I'm not sure that the preamble to the request to me is in fact correct.

MR. LEVI: I spoke to the Minister of Education. He tells me it's frozen in Treasury Board. All I'm asking the Premier to do is to see that it gets unfrozen. I don't want him to tell me he doesn't know whether it's fact; it is fact.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I also listened to the Minister of Education. Perhaps one of the difficulties we have in this House is that that member has incorrectly quoted the minister and taken an entirely different interpretation from the answer than the rest of us.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH
DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since this Kennedy Heights pub was raised, has the minister made inquiries as to whether people in his office or people in the liquor control branch, who have to do with the granting of licences, were in communication with the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) prior to the hearing of the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's been such a long time since those questions were asked, but unless my memory fails me I believe I took that question as notice.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a different question. I want to know whether the minister has commenced to make inquiries into whether or not there was communication with what would be a very small group of people. Has he picked up the phone and begun to make those inquiries? Have you started?

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

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. At this point in time, has the minister approached the federal government with a request for them to allow Cargill to take over Maplewood?

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

MRS. WALLACE: That's interesting in that he was quoted this morning as having so indicated. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act makes provision for the minister to lease the Maplewood Poultry Processing plant in Abbotsford. My question to the minister is: has he now decided to use these sweeping new powers to keep the turkey processing going in the Maplewood plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, with regard to whether or not I had approached the federal government for the Cargill purchase to go through, if that's what the member heard, that was incorrect; I did not make that statement. Secondly, at the present time, I understand that there is a possibility of a new buyer for the Maplewood plant, and I hope to have an update on that very shortly.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(continued)

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

[ Page 4034 ]

which were raised before lunch by four of the members opposite. The first item, which there seemed to be some misunderstanding about, involved the inclusion of domestics and farmworkers. The fact is that the legislation does apply to everyone. Yes, there are exemptions by regulation, and for some very good reasons.

There was one question asked with respect to reinstatement in the provisions. My research over lunch indicates to me that this is provided for in the Canada Labour Code and in one province. The province involved is Nova Scotia, and that's after ten years.

There was another question asked with respect to section 13(5), a proposed amendment. I think perhaps to clarify the members' concern, if they would make reference to section 56, which is the enforcement provision under the maternity section. If it is read in conjunction with section 13(5), you will probably find that that eliminates the confusion which you may have encountered when reading the amending section.

Another question came up with respect to bonding. That was one of the matters we were concerned about — and, of course, the size of the bonding. The farm-labour contractors will be licensed depending on the size of their operations. My major concern, of course, was the protection of wages earned — that they ought to be protected through appropriate bonding. That bonding is going to be calculated on not less — and I would like to repeat "not less" — than one week's wages plus the 72-hour period, which is equivalent to three working days plus holiday pay. When that is added and multiplied by the number of employees, I think you'll find that the bonding, which is at the discretion of the director, will certainly be more than adequate.

Another question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) involved temperature requirements. With all due respect, I think you might make reference to the Factory Act on that. I'm not being facetious; there is a provision in there for it.

As far as the deceived working conditions, you made reference to the old Employment Agencies Act. I think it was originally section 10; under the present legislation it's section 45. The fact is that there was a specific provision in that legislation which made reference to strike and/or lockout. The new section, which is incorporated within the proposed legislation, has been broadened. The spirit and the intent of the proposed section certainly incorporates that particular view. It covers other things as well, and I think you must take that into consideration. For example, what would happen where an agency consistently refers employees to partnerships or corporations who consistently fail to pay wages? The section says that an agency will either not be licensed or the licence would be cancelled where the agency does not operate in the best interest of the employee or person seeking employment. There has to be some discretion placed on the director, and I think that that would probably cover that item.

I appreciate the comments about the Land Registry Act. It was a policy decision, and one that was fundamental. That was the protection of the existing torrens system. I note that Manitoba has just gone back to using the system, respecting the sanctity of it. I appreciate the concerns they have; I also have those concerns. But I might mention that I am trying to come up with an idea to try to address that particular problem in another way.

As far as advertising is concerned — the enforcement — it's our proposal that we do something: something like the Labour Code, some form of advertising. I think that particular piece of work has been well received. There has certainly been a large demand for those particular pamphlets. I was hoping to and intend to do something similar on this one.

There was another reference to charges of room and board. I appreciate and I have just read the amendment put forth by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I appreciate that. If my amendment, which is in, is addressing the same concern.... That is, I didn't want to see the increase in minimum wage eroded as a result of increase in board and room, if in fact it was going to be a somewhat arbitrary increase.

One other item involved the reference to the collective agreements and the fact that there are so many inconsistencies with collective agreements right now and the overtime provisions. I think it would be wrong to intrude by legislation into established agreements. That's why the exception is made for collective agreements as far as overtime is concerned. I thought I was clear, but the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was concerned about that.

I have made it clear on wages for domestics. The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was concerned about the bill and wages as far as domestics are concerned. The minimum wage does apply. Regulations will ensure that it does apply. The only exemption — and I've mentioned this in advance — will involve overtime in hours of work. It's a very difficult question to address, but it has to be.

The last item raised by the member for Burnaby–Edmonds involved children. The question is, how do you really address that problem? I think it's difficult. I know she made reference to the tragedy involving three children. I acknowledge that, but in this particular case it had nothing to do with conditions at the workplace, to the best of my knowledge. But I'm advised by the director that no permit is given unless they are working in a safe environment, and this is one of the conditions. Also, the matter of safety and education comes into play. I think it would be impossible to cover every situation by legislation.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) made reference to the concern which he has involving pesticides. I might mention to you that I've met with some of the farmworkers, and there's no doubt that this can be a serious problem. I really think that the area where it ought to be addressed is probably through the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. You were a little concerned — and I am too — about whether it should or should not apply, and I'm told this is a subject of inquiry at this time.

I realize that I gave a commitment that this would be done quickly to proceed with the House business. I would close debate on this, Mr. Speaker, and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Employment Standards Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MINES ACT

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

[ Page 4035 ]

On section 1.

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

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: In the definition of "mine" as amended from the previous act, I see that the minister has put in a number of changes, but they don't address the problem that we are referring to. The definition of "mine" is the narrowest definition possible; it doesn't refer to tailing dumps, tailing ponds, overflows, and other areas of mines. We would be opposed to this section and this amendment because, for example, if this section passes unamended a company would not be obliged to file within their plans the workings outside of the mine-site itself.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Nonsense.

MR. HANSON: It's not nonsense.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on the amendment to section 1, Hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I'll raise my objections to section 1 after the amendments are dealt with.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, to just reiterate my comments, in the existing act as it's presented the present definition of "mine" does not specifically cover dumps, tailings and their overflows. They should be included in the full, detailed mining plans. These are clearly parts of the mining operation — not just the excavating of the ore material and so on. If there is a claim later on that the mining company is not being responsible in its clean-up activities, there are no filed plans of all those tailing ponds and dumps to go with the regular workings of the mine.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the second member for Victoria is wrong. The development plans include every part of the mine — that which is on the premises and that which is off the premises. I can hardly see this as being a narrow definition. It's the widest possible. It includes everything in connection with the mine. It even goes farther than that in the definition of "working place." Not only does it relate to everything — the underground workings — but it also includes a place designated by the inspector. If there is something we haven't caught, we can catch it by the inspector designating it.

In the designation of "mine," Mr. Chairman, with respect, it has in the past, does now, and will continue in the future to cover tailing ponds, waste disposal and everything else that is related to the mine. It always has and it always will.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, in section 3(l) it says: "that has caused personal injury or loss of life." An inspector should have the power to investigate any occurrence or accident in a mine. It should not be necessary that it resulted in maiming, personal injury or loss of life. The words "that has caused personal injury or loss of life" should be removed. All occurrences in the mine that are potentially hazardous should be covered.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is a danger in only reading one section of a bill at a time. This only covers accidents which cause injury, but, if you'll read further, the inspector has wide powers to cause an investigation at any time that he thinks a dangerous situation is occurring in the mine. He may make an examination either on his own or at the request of the safety committee of the union — and in fact at any other time when there seems to be some problem. So I would suggest to the member that the chief inspector has that power. This section allows him or on the direction of the minister should someone be injured to immediately make an investigation in that regard. I think if you'll read the next section you'll see that there are other powers. Other sections also allow full investigation, either at the request of the inspector or by him.

MR. HANSON: I'd just like to ask the minister why this particular section appears to be silent on the publishing of the inspector's findings — making them public in a report — and the fact that the inquiry is taking place, etc. There should be some disclosure provisions within this section.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think you have to understand the nature of this section. This is something that allows the inspector to move very quickly and immediately into a situation where someone has been hurt or killed. I would assume that the chief inspector's responsibilities in other areas would ensue here as well. You might also understand, Mr. Chairman, that most of this kind of investigation that used to be in the act is not now in the act; it's in the Coroners Act. The coroner now has the responsibility for doing that kind of detailed public reporting that used to be in the Mines Act. This just allows the chief inspector to go in and look at a situation regarding safety and get it fixed as quickly as possible. There are other mechanisms later on in the act which allow the chief inspector on a much more routine matter, if he thinks there's a danger to health or safety or that somebody has been injured, to step in immediately and take such action as is necessary.

MR. D’ARCY: This section has changed the powers in the sections of the Inquiry Act, which gave powers to the inspector. This is going to section 2 from sections 12, 15 and 16. Does the inspector still have the personal discretion to hire staff and disburse funds as he sees fit and as is needed and to take quick action in an inspection problem? He certainly had those powers under the old act.

[ Page 4036 ]

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

MR. D'ARCY: It's nice to hear the minister say that he does, but the sections under which he now has the power don't specifically state that. Is the minister going to say that that's going to be under regulation, and that he's going to give the inspector those powers? They were spelled out in the old act; they're not spelled out in the new one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, we're dealing with two separate subjects. One of the reasons that some of the specific designations, which used to be lodged in the responsibility of the chief inspector, are not made in this act is that they are now lodged in the responsibility of the coroner under the new Coroners Act. The coroner now has that responsibility. The coroner is the senior person responsible for investigating this kind of injury and accident. We took it out of this act because it was a duplication of the Coroners Act. The chief inspector, however, still must have the opportunity and the responsibility for setting those safety standards, for getting in quickly to see whether or not there is a breach of safety regulations in regard to an injury or a death, and for having those breaches corrected as quickly as possible. The actual placing of blame, if there's blame to be placed.... That kind of investigation is now within the Coroners Act.

MR. D'ARCY: In my questions I did not mention the essential happening of somebody being killed or seriously injured. It may well be that an inspector simply sees an unsafe condition in which nobody has been hurt or injured as yet — but it is some kind of hazard, perhaps atmospheric, which he wishes to investigate. My question to the minister is: does he have the power to investigate that beyond his own person? Maybe he feels he needs to contact expert technical advice, or perhaps he wants a second opinion. Does he still have those powers to anticipate a hazardous condition which could cause injury, death, or occupational disease?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A person with responsibilities under the Public Service Act always has the opportunity to contact other people, to call in experts if he needs that second opinion, and to do whatever is necessary. Again, the same questions are being asked that were asked by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). Section 4 gives the chief inspector the clear responsibility to do everything necessary in order to ensure that the health and safety of workers is protected on the mine-site.

Look at subsection (e): "To exercise the powers necessary to carry this act into effect." I assume that means that he can do whatever is necessary in order to ensure that those safety regulations are complied with, if that's what's under investigation.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the minister regarding dangerous conditions — section 5(l)(b). It appears to allow the inspector sweeping powers — for a one-man inspection. In regard to the last sentence of 5(l)(b) — safeguarding the public or persons employed in or about the mine — could the minister clarify exactly what that statement means?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would have to concur that they are wide and sweeping powers for an inspector, designated by the chief inspector, who finds a dangerous condition. It's historic in this province that in many instances in the operation of mines there is no time to be nice. An inspector must be able to have those kinds of sweeping powers that you described. If a condition exists which is clearly dangerous, he must be able to act quickly and with the full force of law in order to get the operation stopped until the condition is corrected. That's really what it means, Mr. Member.

MR. HANSON: Again on the matter of an inspector, and determining that the mine should be closed because of a health hazard, I'm looking at the financial guarantees for the workers displaced as a result of the closure. At the moment it says that the employer shall make his "best endeavours to provide a worker whose employment has been interrupted as a result of the order with alternate employment." For the minister's benefit, that's 5(3). I would prefer to see stronger language — that some provision and guarantee be given for the worker. My concern is that if there is not a financial guarantee, there may be a disincentive for the workers to identify hazardous situations, knowing that they could be unemployed three days later. They're only guaranteed this, I think, under section 5(4): "Where the owner, agent or manager is unable to provide a worker with alternate employment, he shall pay or cause to be paid to the worker the basic hourly wage that the worker would have earned for each day the closure continues up to a maximum of 3 working days."

Let me outline a scenario for you. In the judgment of someone working in a mine there is a hazardous situation, which he brings to the attention of a mines inspector, who then brings that matter to the attention of the company. There's a closure and the person is not found alternate employment and is out after three days while the closure is taking place. What I'm saying is that there may be a disincentive for employees working in hazardous conditions to bring to the attention of their safety committee, or the mines inspector, something that may result in their being unemployed a few days later. I think that there should be better financial guarantees for workers to ensure that there are safeguards and good safe working conditions in these mines.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll take that as notice and discuss it when we next discuss the regulations and the act with union and management. I might say that in discussions in my office with the major unions involved this was not one of the matters they raised as a point of their concern. But I can see the member's point and I'll take it under advisement.

[ Page 4037 ]

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the minister regarding subsection 5(5)(b). The statement is made that the inspector, at the expense of the owner, may cause the company or mine to develop a suitable engineering report assessing the condition of the mine. Could the minister clarify exactly what this means? To give an example, up at Surprise Lake with the Placer Development proposal, what would happen in regard to a problem with the uranium count, if parts per million or parts per billion...? What exactly would the inspector do? Would he cause the mining company to go back into a feasibility study, or would the ministry develop a feasibility study outside the company's jurisdiction to a certain extent?

I have one further quick question, Mr. Chairman. Is there any...? As a suggestion, could the ministry put a public inquiry aspect in at this stage — in which, to a certain extent, a local public inquiry could offer suggestions to the inspector regarding dangerous conditions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I suppose that could always happen. I think the practice has been that an independent report has been required. I think that the companies, in many instances, would sooner — at least in the first instance — have their own engineering reports done. But it has been the practice of the ministry in the past — and I expect it will continue — that an outside independent report be done and filed with the ministry.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. D'ARCY: Regarding reclamation, it would seem as though, under the old act — and I mentioned this in second reading and the minister indicated that he would have something to say on it — there was provision for approval of reclamation plans by other ministries. It appears now that that is not there and the minister is simply going to be appointing a reclamation advisory committee.

Would the other ministries — particularly, I would think, Agriculture, Forests, the fish and game branch, and water resources — be contacted and would they have input into the reclamation plans?

The other point, Mr. Chairman, is that we wish to know whether there are going to be any appeals from a decision of the minister on this. There used to be provision for an appeal to a cabinet committee by any individual or mining company who objected to a decision of the minister in this regard, and that appears to be missing. According to my reading of the act, it seems as though the minister's word is final on this.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are we on section 7 or 8?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 7.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'll answer the question on section 8, I guess. Perhaps we could pass 7 and I could talk about 8, because that's what we're talking about in the reclamation advisory committee. Would that be suitable?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on section 7. It's true that the reclamation advisory committee is not mentioned in that, but the other concern which I expressed, the dropping of any provision for the minister to consult with or get approval from other affected ministries, is under section 7. I would like to have the minister explain why those things aren't there anymore.

Also, there is the question of the case of appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council being dropped, which means, in effect, a cabinet committee is no longer there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the appeal to the minister can always be made, and there is always the opportunity for an appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It doesn't necessarily mean that that's a cabinet committee.

I might say that under the terms of who is consulted on this, there has always been — and I imagine this has gone on for as long as the reclamation laws have been in effect — an informal reclamation advisory committee. It has never been enshrined in legislation. But the ministry and the other ministries involved carried out the practice. We felt that it was important, since this is a multi-discipline area in which we are dealing all of the time, that it should be enshrined in legislation, and so it's here in this bill today.

There are a number of ministries which have traditionally been consulted. Certainly the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing have been in some instances, and I just forget the list of ministers which have traditionally been on this committee.

It is the intention of the government to continue with the same membership on that committee — the various appointees from the various ministries. I received the advice in having this bill drafted that it is no longer government practice to put names of ministries in acts, as a matter of legislative style, because of the possibility of their names changing, as they have several times over the last several years. So I accepted that advice on drafting style, but I can guarantee the member that the same members who are presently on the informal committee will be on the legislated committee.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. HANSON: Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act persons authorized by management and the union or safety committee were allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses at an inquest. Now this particular section states "...an inspector or person designated by an inspector shall be deemed a person whose interests may be affected by evidence adduced at an inquest." What I'm trying to point out to the minister is that it would be desirable after the words "designated by an inspector" to add the following: "and a representative of the local union or safety committee and of mine management." In other words, it doesn't necessarily follow that a safety committee member would be allowed or afforded the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses at an inquest. That really should be taken into consideration as well. I haven't an amendment on that, but perhaps the minister would take that under advisement for discussion, because it may not follow that the mines inspector would look to the safety committee representative to cross-examine or examine witnesses by right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the member's contention that opportunities should be afforded to any of those members who have an interest in the

[ Page 4038 ]

affair. However, it's my understanding that what's been attempted here is to ensure that the inspector is entitled to be a party to the inquest under the Coroners Act. The coroner will decide. You know, if there are people on the site — a safety committee — I would expect that he'd have an easier time deciding that they had an interest in the case and should be heard, and the cross-examination could take place at that time. He might not have as easy a time accepting that an inspector who is somewhat removed from the issue should also be heard. We just want to make sure that the inspector has that opportunity to give evidence and cross-examine. If for some reason the opportunity is not afforded to those people you mentioned, I'd certainly take into consideration the need for changes.

On section 11.

MR. PASSARELL: Concerning cancellation of permits, the minister is probably aware of the situation up in Centreville last year, in which a miner, Mr. George Zimick, had his permit revoked because of a complaint from an individual who had a personal difference with him and lived down the river from him. My question to the minister regarding cancellation of permits is: could the minister look into the possibility of having more inspectors in the north, whereby there'd be more regular on-site visits so that an individual who has a mining claim and has his permit cancelled, let's say in June, won't have to wait until August, when the mining season is almost completed, to see an inspector? Maybe the minister could offer some suggestions in regard to this problem.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think we sort of slipped out of this bill a little bit, Mr. Chairman, but that's okay. This section, of course, only deals with permits which are issued under the reclamation section of the act. But, yes, I agree with the tremendous interest in mining activity. The ministry has approval for increased staffing and that will take place at the earliest opportunity. All you have to do is go across the street and look into our office over there and you'll see it crawling with people and maps all over the place. There's a tremendous boom and we need more help.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 19 as amended.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to delete section 19(2)(a). The language refers to dust exposure from working in a mine, but the provisions of the section do not apply to a person who is normally required to work less than 20 percent of his working time in any one month in a dust-exposure occupation, unless it is in an asbestos-mining operation. My contention is that there is not enough empirical medical evidence to indicate that a person working less than 20 percent of his working time in any one month is not subjected to sufficient exposure to damage his health. I don't know of any justification for that clause. Why not leave the exposure levels to be established by the Workers' Compensation Board, as opposed to enshrining in legislation something that may have no basis in medical fact? So what I'm saying is that by deleting that 20 percent of working time in a month, that would allow the medical authorities, through the Workers' Compensation Board regulations, to determine what would be a hazardous exposure level to particular individuals in certain work areas. I would encourage the minister to delete that section.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with a great deal of respect I would say that the government can't accept the amendment at this point, but I'd like to point out what the practice has been in the past and what we expect it will be in the future in terms of changing both this legislation and the regulations. There has been, I'm told, a high degree of cooperation between the industry and the unions in developing this legislation. I've made a strong commitment to the union in a recent meeting with them that no changes would be made to this act without their full cooperation and that they would be fully involved. I've committed that we will set up a joint management-union-ministry committee immediately, first of all to deal with the regulations which will be drawn under this act, and secondly to review the act and its regulations on an ongoing basis.

I have discussed with the union the 20 percent rule, and their concerns about it are the same concerns the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has. I have promised the union that once the regulations are finished one of the first issues we'll deal with is the 20 percent limit, and we will have the opportunity to hear both the people from the Workers' Compensation Board and the medical people, have them submit briefs to us so that we can look at them, and if it can and should be changed we'll change it. I give as a commitment that it will be done in full cooperation with all of those involved. However, having given that commitment not only to the union but to management as well, I would feel reluctant at this point to make the changes after I've gone over them with both sides.

I might add too that in those discussions regarding this section, the most serious concern that the unions had was not so much the 20 percent rule but rather that there was nothing in the bill which demanded that regular, ongoing medical examinations be held. On looking at that, I felt that was a major deficiency, and that's the reason for the amendment which the House has just passed. Calling for those ongoing medical examinations in the regulations in terms of asbestos operations, those examinations will be at 12-month intervals rather than at 24-month intervals, but for no dust operations will they be allowed to go longer than 24 months.

So, Mr. Chairman, at the same time as saying that the government can't accept this amendment at this time, because we would like to talk to both sides about it, I do give the committee a commitment that a joint committee will be set up immediately, and that will be one of their first tasks.

Amendment negatived.

On section 19 as amended.

[ Page 4039 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, under the existing practices in the event that the worker underground or anywhere in the mining area fails a medical examination of normal chest pulmonary functions, the practice is that that worker immediately takes a service job and no longer, hopefully, will be exposed to the atmospheric conditions which cause this loss of normal chest function and maintains his employment and can support his family for a long period of time. However, Mr. Chairman, I don't see any provision for this here in the new bill, and I certainly would like to see that that practice is carried on by the industry. Where a miner is unfortunate enough to be exposed to dust as a result of breathing whatever — usually silicon, since it's one of the most common elements — he should be able to maintain his employment, if he so wishes, with that particular company on that particular mine site at a job on the surface, particularly since there are more and more surface jobs due to a trend towards surface mining in the province of B.C. Right now it's more or less mandatory; it appears to be optional here. Responsible companies no doubt will keep people on; the ones that are less responsible will let people go. I would like to see that written into the act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm advised by all of the legal advisers we have around here that it is in the act. In the old act it was not mandatory. It held out that the employer would offer, the employee would have to accept; however, if the employee didn't accept the offer, then there was some severance pay made. I'm told, Mr. Chairman, that this section is exactly the same; I've discussed it very thoroughly with the unions, and I've again guaranteed them that that's what it means — that's what the legal advisers tell me it means — and that it is no different from the practice in the past. Again, all I can say is that if that proves to be incorrect, based on the best legal advice I can get, then I guess it'll have to be changed to ensure.... But the intention of the government and the intention of the bill is exactly the same as that which was in place before.

MR. D'ARCY: I will accept the minister's assurance. However, we're certainly not just asking for a requirement that an employee take a job; it's simply that an offer should be made, as it often is made, particularly in other industries. Offers are made. It's not even necessarily a job that has a high rate of pay, but a job offer of some sort is made.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We can fool around with words all we want, but I'm told by the legal advisers that the present wording of subsection (6) of this section does require that employment be offered. And unless it's both offered and accepted, severance pay is given, which is the same as with the old act.

MR. HANSON: There are a number of clauses in section 19 that really fall much short of the mark. Subsection 19(4) states that if an employer requires an employee to undertake a test by a medical practitioner.... Now presumably this medical practitioner would be employed by the company. As the minister knows, in many instances there are differences of opinion on a medical basis between a family physician representing an employee and a medical practitioner in the employ of a company. Sometimes differences arise. It would be far better to have stated in that language a medical examination by a physician selected by the employee. I think that would put the onus on that physician as opposed to the company.

I have an objection to that clause, but I want to move on. I also have an objection to 19(6), which refers to the case where an employee has had a medical examination by a medical practitioner and the medical practitioner has determined that the employee can no longer work in an area of high dust exposure; therefore the company is to find alternate employment. If they are unable to find alternate employment, the employee is given a four-week cheque and goes down the road. Again, that may not be a sufficient incentive for the company to have a safe operation if they have employees working in an area of high dust exposure and the only penalty to the company is four weeks' pay.

I have an amendment that I would wish to move on 19(6), which is this: after the words "pay him," substitute "26'' for "4". In other words: "An employee, where the company is unable to find alternate employment in a dust-free environment, would be paid 26 weeks' pay, as opposed to 4 weeks' pay."

Mr. Chairman, the point we're trying to make with the minister is that section 19, as it relates to safety, is antiquated. It is not language that is accommodating new developments in medicine, nor is it language accommodating innovations in labour management relations, safety relations, and so on. We should be applying maximum pressure in a fair way into a working environment so that the employer is obliged to have as safe a working environment as possible. In my view, to have a four-week penalty for a high dust exposure which has damaged the health of an employee sufficiently that he or she can no longer work in a dust exposure environment is certainly inadequate.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The government couldn't accept that. I accept that there are going to be changes here, as new scientific knowledge is gained, but as I mentioned earlier, I think that the sensible way to make any changes to this bill is through full consultation. The amendment that the member puts forward would be a severe imposition on the employers — 26 weeks' pay in place of 4 weeks' pay — and I think it wouldn't be incumbent upon this Legislature to put forward that kind of change without full consultation from both sides. I would expect that that would be the kind of matter which the joint committee could deal with for changes upcoming in future legislative sessions, which if this one keeps going, won't be that far off.

Amendment negatived.

Section 19 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

[ Page 4040 ]

NAYS — 19

Sections 20 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

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

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I notice that the minister has said in the amendment that he wishes to restrict or prohibit "for a prescribed period of time." Can the minister give some indication to the House of what he means by a prescribed period of time. Can he also give some idea to the House and the people of this province of exactly what he is going to define as a uranium mine or a mine containing uranium? Perhaps it is also an indication as to whether he is going to keep for himself discretionary powers to vary those standards from situation to situation, from place to place, and from region to region within the province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all I'd just like to say that there is no intention on the part of this government to relax the seven-year moratorium which has been placed on both exploration and development of mining for uranium in this province. It is instead the full intent of this legislation, and the regulations which will follow, to put in place, first of all, the seven-year moratorium and, secondly, to allow those people who are presently holding claims on which uranium has been established not to lose their opportunity for those claims because they don't perform the work requirements which are normally required under the act. It will put the ban in place. It will be for a seven-year period, and it will not be site-specific throughout the province.

This is a bit unusual, but perhaps it would help the members if, when the committee rises, I tabled the draft regulations which will accompany these amendments in this regard. I don't know whether that's been done in the House in the past or not, but I think it would be extremely helpful for all members to have the opportunity to read them, understanding that they are a draft and that they will need to be passed by order-in-council by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I can, though, for the purposes of the committee, outline the highlights, which I think will answer the questions raised by the member for Rossland–Trail (Mr. D'Arcy).

First of all, under the first amendment, the first question that was asked dealt with the prescribed period of time. Draft regulation No. 8 under this section says, "This regulation is repealed on February 28, 1987," which puts in place the prescribed seven-year period. In regard to the area which will be prescribed as a reserve to prohibit both exploration and development of uranium, section 2 of the draft regulations makes the entire province of British Columbia a reserve under this act — and a placer-mining reserve in respect of the mineral uranium — so that you in fact have the seven-year moratorium in place and you have the entire province covered by the reserve. Under the terms of these amendments, the regulations will go on to say, "No person shall explore for, develop, mine or produce any mineral for its uranium content on the reserve created," which I've said is the entire province of British Columbia.

With regard to the threshold levels for uranium — and those have been in place for some time — it's my understanding that they were first put in place as a result of the interim report of the Bates commission. During the course of exploring for a mineral, if mineral ore is encountered which has uranium in a quantity exceeding 0.5 kilograms of uranium for every ton of mineral ore in place, no person shall explore for any mineral on the property where the uranium at those threshold levels has been encountered. Further, the person who encounters those threshold levels will be required to report that fact in writing to the chief inspector within seven days, and that will, in fact, place that property under the reserve which has been placed on the province.

The regulations will further say that in the course of producing another mineral from a proven mineral ore body, which contains more than 0.01 percent uranium by weight, the owner or whoever is involved with the mine shall order all production at that mine to cease and, within seven days, inform the chief inspector that uranium above those threshold levels has been discovered.

There will be other regulations, regarding the matter that I raised first, which will allow the easing of the work requirements for those people who want to hold onto those properties in the hope, perhaps, that some other government will ease the moratorium after the seven years. Those I have promised from the first time the moratorium was announced.

There will then be two threshold levels — the first in the discovery and the second in the operation of a working mine. Other than that, there will be no allowance.

Perhaps the only other thing that seems to have been a controversial section under this amendment — and I think it would be cleared up by the draft regulations — is that the inspector would have the opportunity to open, under certain conditions, further exploration or development on a mine site. The regulations will insist that if there is uranium in that amount, it cannot be touched. All that's required is that.... There may be a very large mining property and they may be able to move half a mile away and find an area which has an ore with no uranium content in it on the same property. At that point, the inspector would have the opportunity to say, "Look, move from where you are at the present time and start your mining operation where there is no threshold level of uranium," and he would have the opportunity to allow that.

It's very clear that the uranium moratorium will be set in place by the regulations, which will be passed immediately following the passage of these amendments. The seven years is set in place and the ban is set in place. The entire province of British Columbia becomes a reserve on which no uranium mining or exploration can be allowed.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to thank the minister for his rather quantitative explanation, except that it didn't really answer the questions. For instance, I would have to ask the minister again: if he wants us to take him in good faith — that what

[ Page 4041 ]

he's saying is all going to be true — why can't he be up front about it in the House and put the changes and regulations that he's talking about in here in the amendments? The fact remains that the minister or another minister or another government can make changes to these regulations at whim. I must agree that in a parliamentary system the government has the power to make changes whenever they want to; but at least they have to be public about it if the changes have to be made in this chamber, and at least it's before the press gallery and people can see it. The fact is that the minister and cabinet can make changes to regulations at any time. If the minister is as sincere as he would have us believe about these regulations which he says he's going to put into place, I can't understand why he doesn't put them on the record in this House.

Another question I have is: what form of independent public scrutiny is there going to be into whether any radioactivity levels which the minister may prescribe are not going to be exceeded either in the exploration of an ore body or in the development and mining of various ore properties? I would agree with the minister that the levels can vary from point to point in a particular property: you have hot spots and you have cold spots. You also have uranium involved with a great many other minerals and ores. Is there any independent public scrutiny of what the mine developer and mine owner are going to be reporting to the inspector? We all know, for instance, that your civil servants out there in the field are spread pretty thin, They do a good job, I think, but they're spread pretty thin. One or two people will cover an entire segment of the province. How do we know that there's going to be any independent public scrutiny? How do we know that the levels are going to be maintained?

Also, the minister did not indicate what the penalty might be for somebody who breaks the regulations. Is it going to be under the summary convictions act? Is he going to get a slap on the wrist? As the minister may recall — if he read the paper and talked to his predecessor, the member for Boundary–Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), when he was minister — one of the major problems people had in my constituency, particularly in the Genelle area, a year or so ago was that it seemed as though people could break the provincial and federal law at will. Even when the inspection people agreed that the law and regulations had been broken, they said: "Well, that's too bad. We told them not to do it again, to stop." One of the great frustrations of the general public was that when the law and the regulations as they were then were broken many times on many different issues — and this was accepted in a court case that followed — there really was no penalty. There was really no way of restricting these activities, even though there may have been a slap on the wrist for the people involved.

Can the minister assure the public of B.C. and this chamber that there is going to be some action in the event that somebody does deliberately break one or more of the regulations surrounding uranium, which the minister is going to put in place, or, quite frankly, regulations which have been in place for years and which sound pretty good on the surface, but which in fact don't mean very much if people can break the law and get away with it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just on the question of the regulations, I think the intention of the government is pretty clear. I've taken what I consider to be a rather unusual move by offering to table these draft regulations for the House's scrutiny.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think that's an act of some faith on the part of the government. I'll give you my guarantee right here, and now that they will be put forward and that they will contain those requirements which I've said they'll contain.

It's true that if there were an election tomorrow and the NDP suddenly became government again, the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is such a supporter of uranium mining in British Columbia, would probably want to change these regulations right away, but I can tell you that this government won't. Any government can do anything it wants. You can put a 50-year moratorium on today, and a government could come along tomorrow and change it. You've got to take some things on some kind of faith.

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that these regulations will be put forward, they will put the ban in place and the ban will cover the entire province. You have my word on that. If you don't accept my word, then that's okay with me.

In regard to the policing of this act once it's in place, I don't know who your public scrutineer would be. I certainly consider the officials of my ministry to be independent. They're certainly independent of the mines and the mine owners. I agree that they've done a good job. As I said to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I also agree that they're short-staffed and need some help. I don't expect that this will be a difficult act to manage. It will be managed by the chief inspector, just as all of the regulations within this act are at the present time. I think you'd agree that, over the years, the chief inspector has done a pretty good job of ensuring that these regulations are lived up to.

As for the problem of penalties, there won't be a slap on the wrist. If you had read all the sections of the bill you would have seen, under "offences and penalties," that pretty heavy penalties are involved for anybody who breaches these regulations. Anyone who contravenes this act or an order made under this act. which includes the regulations, is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or to both. Further we have added more muscle to that penalties section by saying that once a written notice of any contravention of the act has been made and the contravention continues, then the owner is further liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000 and not less than $500 for every day during which the offence continues. That's a section that was not in the act before, and I believe it brings some measure of responsibility to those who would contravene not only this section of the act but any other section.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, what the minister doesn't seem to understand about this is that in something as sensitive to the public as the question of radioactivity — in the air, in the water, in the ground around them — enforcement of standards not only must be fair and adequate, as the minister assures us it's going to be, but must appear to be fair. What I'm suggesting is that if the minister really understood what is and has been concerning many people in B.C. about the question of radioactive deposits in the ground, he not only would have the faith that he has in the people in his ministry — faith that I share — but would be quite prepared to welcome testing of radioactive levels by officials from the medical health office in the particular region if a question

[ Page 4042 ]

comes up, just to establish that for the purposes of public opinion in the area the levels are what the inspectors say they are. I have no doubt that the MHO people would prove the Mines people correct; the point is that there needs to be that second professional opinion from someone who lives in the area and has professional qualifications in the health field. I think that is something this minister and the government don't understand.

I'm still concerned about the minister not answering the simple question that I put: if he is so sincere in wanting everybody in this chamber and outside of it to take him at his word, why does he have to put those things under regulation that can be changed at the whim of himself or any other minister or any other government, when he could just as easily put them in the act in front of us today and have us all vote on them? If he or some other minister or some other government wanted to change those, they should have to come back into this chamber and make those changes and be on the record. That's what we would like to see. The minister hasn't explained to us why he and his government are not prepared to go that route.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is simply that these are the kinds of regulations that are generally dealt with by regulation, and this government intends to continue to deal with them by regulation. It will put the moratorium in place, and it will be in place for seven years — that's what this group should be concerned about today.

Speaking of people who don't understand, that member doesn't understand the situation at all. That party on the other side was government for three years. Did they do anything about radioactive ore? Did they do anything about exploration for uranium? Did they do anything about the development of mining for uranium? Not a thing. They sat here for three years and never did a thing about the thing they say they're so concerned about today. The member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stood in this House and urged this House to get on with uranium mining so we wouldn't have to dam any more rivers — Nic the Nuke from Creston, or wherever he's from....

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw that. But if you talk about understanding, this government came to grips with what is a very serious problem and has placed a seven-year moratorium on the exploration and development of uranium in this province. It's the first government that's had the guts to stand up to such a serious social issue. I'm proud to be part of the government that did this and is going to continue to do it.

MR. PASSARELL: I have three short questions to the minister regarding this section. Firstly, can the minister confirm that the development of Placer moly mine at Atlin is consistent with the government's moratorium on uranium mining? Secondly, can the minister state how many parts per million of uranium in an ore body are significant to the moratorium? You were mentioning fractions and percentages and tonnage. Presently some of the ore bodies in the Placer development are above 20 parts per million. Thirdly, can the minister confirm that the development of Amax moly mine at Kitsault is consistent with the government's moratorium on uranium, specifically when Amax will be dumping 100 million tons of radioactive mine tailings into Alice Arm? I hope the minister can give me a response to those three short questions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't convert those percentages into parts per million at this time for the member, but I will undertake to do that for him and give him a written answer if he wishes. I can say that it's my understanding that the moly mine in Atlin does fall under the guidelines and will be allowed in that regard. As far as I know, there's no indication at this time that the Kitsault mine will achieve something more than the threshold levels. If they did, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to continue. The matter of the tailings disposal, I understand, is currently before the federal Fisheries. An order-in-council has recently been passed by federal Fisheries, approving that disposal method at that mine. That was in conjunction with working with our Ministry of Environment. However, I understand that federal Fisheries is still looking at that with the possibility of perhaps taking a second look at it. I'm not privy to what federal Fisheries either does or might not do in this case, although I'm told that there is a sort of a one-window approach to this where they approach the thing with our Ministry of Environment in full cooperation in this regard. It's my understanding that that's where that is at the present time.

MR. SKELLY: I'm having difficulty in accepting the minister's assurance that the regulations he read into the record today are going to be passed at any time. In fact the minister didn't give the assurance that the regulations would be passed. As I understand it, he only said that he would take them to cabinet in their present form, and then it's "hope for the best."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said I'd pass them. They would be passed immediately following the passage of these amendments.

MR. SKELLY: Does the minister pass regulations, or does cabinet pass regulations?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier of this government and all the members of this government have made themselves extremely clear on the matter of uranium mining and exploration in this province. It will not be allowed for seven years. I have no fear, with the Premier sitting here, that cabinet will pass these regulations so that it will not be allowed for seven years.

MR. SKELLY: I still cannot accept the minister's guarantee that those are going to be passed by cabinet or by anyone else, for that matter.

HON. MR. FRASER: Suspicious socialist.

MR. SKELLY: Of course I'm suspicious — and harking back to a quotation by Thomas Jefferson, who said that the

[ Page 4043 ]

duty of every citizen in a democracy is to be suspicious of government. I support Thomas Jefferson. There are hundreds of years of history in both the United States and Canada that indicate to me that I should support Thomas Jefferson on that issue of being suspicious about the promises of government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He didn't even know this government.

MR. SKELLY: When he made this statement in the first place, I think he was thinking about the possibility of a government such as this one coming into office. When I look back at throne speeches that promised bills of rights for the province of British Columbia, comprehensive expropriation statutes for the province, significant environmental legislation for the province of B.C.... Every one was a wasted, empty Social Credit promise. Why should we accept anything made as a guarantee and undertaken as a promise on the part of that minister when they've delivered so little in the past? Why? What we would expect and hope for in this uranium mining situation is a rule of law in this province to govern uranium — not discretion on the part of minister or cabinet, but a rule of law that governs the mining of uranium in the province of British Columbia; not something that can be promised in a Legislature, passed in the form of regulation and a week later repealed behind the curtain of cabinet. That's not something we were expecting, and that's not something that the citizens of this province, who are so concerned about the mining of uranium, are expecting of.... They may be expecting it of this government, but they certainly aren't expecting something of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia that can be passed in the form of regulation and changed the following week to do away with the seven-year moratorium.

With all due respect, we simply cannot accept the Premier's promise that during his lifetime they're not going to have any uranium mining in the province of B.C. With all due respect, and accepting the word of the member in the House, we do not believe that those promises are sufficient for the people of this province who want to have a moratorium on uranium mining in place and legally enshrined in this province. Furthermore, we feel that this section has absolutely no effect whatsoever, if you can pass the regulations and then turn over and give the chief mines inspector the right to repeal them the day after cabinet passes the regulations. It says that any regulation made pursuant to that section, notwithstanding the chief inspector of mines, can allow the recommencement of exploration and development. It doesn't say at a different location or a different site or for different minerals; it says the recommencement of exploration and development, as if the regulations hadn't been passed in the first place. It says a mine that has been closed can be reopened on the word of the chief inspector of mines.

What kind of a moratorium is it where cabinet passes a moratorium and then gives a servant of cabinet, a servant of the government, the right to repeal it? I don't think it would stand up in court for a minute and it certainly doesn't stand up with the public of this province — the same way as we passed the budget for the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and now he's cut it all to ribbons in the constituencies of some members. Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot accept the word of the government that this moratorium will stand, unless that word of the government is enshrined in legislation that can be debated in the Legislative Assembly and the terms are clearly spelled out of the final ban on uranium mining for seven years and that the only time it can be lifted is when it's brought to full public debate in this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let this moment pass, when the minister has given the assurance that not only will the strong stand taken by the government be dealt by with this legislation, but it will be by regulation.

I don't blame the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) for being somewhat cynical on political stances regarding uranium mining. He was a member of a government that did nothing. He was a strong member of a government — not strong enough to get into cabinet, but strong enough to be a part of it — that allowed and even signed an exploration permit specifically to do with uranium mining.

But that's not the only significant matter. What is significant is that the only New Democratic Party government in Canada is in Saskatchewan, where uranium mining has been unleashed — not just exploration, but mining. For that member to stand up and to speak in such a way, to try and run from their own record as government and to try and run from the record of their party as the government of Saskatchewan is just a little bit cynical and a little bit hard to take — and it's not just hard to take for me.

The member says he represents and is in tune with the feelings of the people of his province. Well, I come from an area in which a lot of that exploration was taking place, and I talked to a lot of young people; specifically I can think of six whom I met around the province as individuals, not as a group. It just so happens that four of them had lived in Saskatchewan, had been members of the New Democratic Party, had opposed their party there and oppose their party here for the wishy-washy attitude it had as government. They've become disillusioned with members such as the member for Alberni, who is very brave and bold in opposition, fighting for every cause, but was a marshmallow when he was in government and when it came to taking any strong stand on anything. He didn't even have the courage to contradict his own colleague, the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who made a speech advocating no more hydro development, but wanted nuclear development in this province — something that is unacceptable. He has not had the courage yet, Mr. Chairman, and I believe....

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I cannot see how the Premier's remarks are relevant at all, let alone strictly relevant to the amendment before us here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland–Trail raises a valid point of order. We must relate our comments to the specific amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I believe that it would be valid if you had not allowed these very same areas to be touched when they were speaking to this section. Mr. Chairman, I could not sit in my place and allow them to get away with bafflegab that is totally untrue, and their totally inconsistent position. I want to say that this Minister of Energy has taken a strong stand on this issue. He's brought in legislation; he's promised regulation — something they didn't do either when they were government in British Columbia and are not doing as government in Saskatchewan. I would remind the people of this Legislature and this province that the best guarantee is

[ Page 4044 ]

a government that means what it says, because if we were to have the Blakeney government elected in British Columbia, they could wipe out the legislation with their huge, awesome majority, if they were given such a chance. We saw that New Democratic Party as government try to go against legal contracts, such as they did with the PNE. Legislation and contracts mean nothing to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If they ever got a chance as government, Mr. Chairman, they would destroy all the good legislation to protect the people.

Now I want to support the minister. I only really rose to say that I wanted to give the assurance that the minister gave that the Premier and the cabinet support his regulations.

MR. SKELLY: Notwithstanding the Premier's red herring, Mr. Chairman, and the fact that he's now left the assembly after blowing his campaign speech, I would like to get back to the issue here. I think the reason the Premier stood up in this debate is to let the Minister of Mines know that he's under instructions to get this section passed, and passed in the form that it's been presented, because that Social Credit Party, in spite of their statements that they keep their promises and that they are the government of no uranium mining.... Ninety percent of the promises made by this government — even in throne speeches, even in the plan that's laid out in advance of every session of the Legislature in which the government promises to do what is laid out in that throne speech.... They haven't fulfilled the terms of half of those promises.

HON. MR. FRASER: Read this morning's Province.

MR. SKELLY: I've read the other Social Credit newsletter.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we cannot support a uranium mining ban that isn't written in terms of legislation — not in regulation, but in terms of legislation which can be debated right here in the Legislative Assembly of B.C. — is because we cannot trust a government to keep its promises, especially if that government may change. The minister may change. And once he's changed, we've found out in question period that his assurances don't stand; not even his recollections will stand, Mr. Chairman. So we have to have something.... As democrats and believers in the Jeffersonian system of democracy, citizens should not believe the assurances of government. When a government comes and says "trust me," you should ignore it and demand legislation that protects the citizens. That's what we're asking for in this case. As far as we are concerned, this amendment to this act doesn't provide citizens of this province the assurance that they will be protected by a uranium mining moratorium, especially when the chief inspector of mines has the right to lift that moratorium after the government has announced it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the message is filtering down in the community that the force and effect of this bill is actually no stronger than a Thursday morning cabinet meeting. That is clear. It has been clear from the statements from this side of the House.

But what I'd like to direct my attention to is a remark made by the minister regarding the proportion of radioactive materials that are going to be allowed, because clearly what is happening is that there is going to be the mining of radioactive materials. There is going to be the mining of uranium. It is a matter of proportion in its relationship to the other minerals, as stated by the minister.

The minister pointed out that 0.5 of a kilogram per tonne would be allowed, and 0.5 of a kilogram is roughly a pound per tonne. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has pointed out on a number of occasions that 100 million tonnes of tailings over the next 15 years are going to be dumped in Alice Arm — that's tailings. When you mine ore and you have that quantity of tailings, you're going to have a lot of radioactive waste material. Where is that radioactive waste material going to go? It is going to go into the ocean, or perhaps into landfills. My question to the minister is this. As you dismantled the royal commission that was looking into tolerance levels and other technical aspects of uranium mining, how have you now determined that 0.5 of a kilogram is an acceptable level of uranium to have left over, after you take out the molybdenum or whatever ore is the case? Can you tell me what you are basing your judgment on?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer that question. First of all, the commission has not been dismantled. The commission is preparing its final reports based on mountains of evidence which was given at public hearings all over this province and achieved in other places. I expect that that report will probably be delivered on time somewhere near the end of October. It will be a public report at that time. For the member to say that the commission has been dismantled is completely false and not according to the facts. Mr. Chairman, I can also say that the threshold levels that I've mentioned will be in place are the same threshold levels that have been in place ever since the interim report of the Bates commission, which recommended those threshold levels.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to deal with the second part of this amendment, which has been addressed very briefly by my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly). I think it's a very significant part of this amendment that we are setting up here a procedure whereby a cabinet regulation or order can be overridden by a civil servant. To me, this harks of shades of the heroin act, because I'm not at all sure that this is a legal piece of legislation. You know, you just don't do a thing like that. I doubt if it would stand up in court. Why in the world...? We're pretending that we're going to do something about this and engrave it in stone, as it were, in some kind of regulation. We have all these promises that this is going to happen, yet there is nothing in the act to say that it will. Then, on top of that, we have this thing in the act that says that whatever happens the chief inspector can simply overturn it. It doesn't make any kind of sense in the first place and I very much doubt that it would stand the scrutiny of the courts. It's the heroin act repeated.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In response to that, I can only say that I've explained that to the Legislature. If it happens that I'm in legal trouble again, I'll try not to hire that member for my lawyer.

MR. D’ARCY: I'll try one more time, Mr. Chairman. Things were rather curious a few minutes ago. In one breath — and I mean quite literally in one breath — he stated this had never been done before, and in the next breath he said: " Well, it's going to be in regulation because we always do it

[ Page 4045 ]

that way." I simply can't understand how you can always do something a certain way when it's never been done before. How can the minister say both those statements in the same sentence and still be credible to himself? The fact is that the minister, through all the bombast which he has given us in answer to what I think is a simple question.... Why can't he be upfront about this and put what he's saying in the legislation? In spite of all the bombast that he and the Premier have produced, they have not answered a simple question as to why they simply can't put the moratorium, the length of time, and the regulations around it into the legislation here so that it can be voted on by this chamber and any changes that may be made in the future can be voted on by this chamber before the public of British Columbia. He has not answered any of those questions.

I'm not going to filibuster this thing anymore, but I just can't understand why he cannot make an attempt to give a reasonable and rational statement to this Legislature on those points.

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

On section 38.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 48 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the title pass?

MR. D'ARCY: I call a division, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 39, Mines Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to be able to move second reading of this act which is before the House and which has seen a great deal of input from the community. This is the revision and complete change of the Protection of Children Act which has been the subject of a White Paper which circulated throughout the province and which was given input by many community organizations. We received over 1,200 submissions, as a matter of fact, both written and verbal. We felt the response from the community was truly overwhelming.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We believe the act represents a significant change in the approach which takes into account the changing attitudes that we have seen in society towards children and families. Our ministry's thrust has been focused on services to families, and for the first time the services to families and children in recent years have been reflected in this bill so that we do not treat the child separately and in isolation from the family. The bill departs from the traditional approach of treating the state and parents as adversaries. In the process of protecting children this adversary role is modified and makes provision for the state and parents to work together to improve the family unit. It certainly does, in all ways, reinforce the role of the family in our society. It recognizes the child's sense of time. I know that we'll get to all of these items in detail in the committee stage, but I do feel that it's important to note that it does recognize the child's sense of time, and that there are time restrictions which allow for permanent life plans for children who through circumstances cannot stay with their natural parents and become children who have to have an alternate life.

The safety and well-being of children continues to be paramount in the new legislation, and that underlies everything that we're doing in this act. It is clearly supportive of the integrity of the family, and it spells out the limits of state intervention in family life.

There have been statements regarding the act by many people and I'd like to pay tribute to some of them. We have had statements from many organizations in the province.

[ Page 4046 ]

Most statements have been highly complimentary. Some have said they would have liked some changes here or there. We have looked at all of those submissions and we have looked at them well. We think that the act we have here is one that truly meets the child's needs and right to protection from abuse and neglect. It also clarifies the duty of every citizen who reports child neglect and that they have a duty to report.

We have within the act, not spelled out — and I would like to suggest to the members opposite, because one of our members has a private member's bill which addresses the rights of children.... I really would like to point out that we feel that the rights of children are very well spelled out in terms of protection, which is really what we wanted to do through this act. We haven't attempted in any way to duplicate other acts or to duplicate those areas of legislation which are already on the statutes.

It sets out the specific considerations to be followed when a child is in the care of the state. It acknowledges the rights of parents, except in cases where they have forfeited those rights by reason of neglect or abuse of their children. Even then, the act provides for due court process in the termination of parental guardianship.

I would just like to say that this act addresses our responsibility for the safety and well-being of children. It recognizes the family's primary responsibility for meeting the needs of children. It defines the role of the state in support of the family in a variety of ways.

At this point in time I would like to quote Justice Berger. In an article in The Social Worker in the spring of 1979 he had this to say about the rights of children:

"It is, of course, primarily the responsibility of the family, of the parents, to provide for children's needs. The function of governmental institutions and agencies is to supplement the family in meeting these needs whenever the family is either temporarily or permanently unable to provide them."

As all in this House would know, Justice Berger is well known for his work in family and children's law in the province.

"The notion is gathering support that children have rights under the law. You can spell out the rights of children to your heart's content, yet to a certain extent they cannot be effectively guaranteed by legislation or effectively enforced by anyone. The law can offer a substantial measure of protection to the family and to children by the guarantees of due process that are being developed for the child and his parents in child welfare cases, but the law cannot guarantee the delivery of services to a whole category of children."

Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is, I feel, a very great improvement on the act which our ministry has had to deal with for some years now. The issue of children's rights deserves better than a blanket statement of unenforceable principles set out as legislation. But children's rights are implied in terms of their protection. Children's rights in terms of their care and services are implied in other acts in this House. In this legislation we have made no attempt to duplicate other bills. We have tried to do it in very clear language so it will be a very good working document for the ministry staff.

I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading of Bill 45.

MS. BROWN: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there were 1,500 submissions, or maybe even more, dealing with laws affecting children and services to children and families in this province. It is true that there was a lot of public input, and it probably is true that there was an intention to draft an act which took into consideration some of the recommendations included in those submissions. I believe that after a year's work, the person who spearheaded that did, in fact, draft such an act. Reading the draft of that act, certainly one was led to hope that the final legislation which hit the floor of this House would indeed incorporate services to all children and families in this province. But that is not the case.

What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a piece of legislation which simply amends the Protection of Children Act. It calls itself an act dealing with the family and children, and that is the last time that the word "family" is found anywhere in the act. It very clearly is an act that is not committed to the family at all.

The minister in her press release led us to believe that it had to do with strengthening the fabric of the family, but it, in fact, concentrates on the destruction and disintegration of the family. It does not deal with all of the children of the province, only children in crisis, children in need, and children who need to be taken into protection. One would have hoped that a piece of legislation of this nature would have been allencompassing, that it would have dealt with matters that would enhance the lives of children in the province and, indeed, strengthen the fabric of families in this province. It's possible that the minister, in putting together the final draft, did not have the benefit of any of those 1,500 briefs, because there is no indication whatsoever in this act that any of the recommendations which were presented in any of those 1,500 briefs were incorporated in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there have been millions of words written about the changing role of the family in society, and certainly about the changing attitude and laws of society towards the family. We agree that it's changing, and we agree that it certainly is in need of strengthening.

One of the things I'd like to quote from today is "Protection of Children Under the Law," an extract from a book entitled All Our Children by Kenneth Keniston. He points out, after going through a historical discussion of the ways in which family life has changed, that few, if any, jurisdictions have taken a comprehensive look at all of the legal and other principles affecting children to see if they make sense in terms of our current knowledge, experience and norms for families and children, and to enact an integrated comprehensive children's code. He goes on to say: "This should be a high-priority work for legislators, lawyers, parents, child advocates, people who work with children, and other interested groups throughout our nation." He also says that we do not look to legal reform in children's rights as a primary source of a better life for children and families, but we do see it as a necessary foundation for determining the inevitable disputes that will arise in any set of relationships as complex as that of the child, the family and the state.

I must confess that, having read the draft of the legislation, I was impressed with the draft and anticipated that the final legislation — when we saw it — would in fact deal with that complicated relationship between the child, the parent and the state, and would lay down the guidelines and the foundation on which to ensure the rights of children in this

[ Page 4047 ]

province, and certainly ensure the strengthening of the fabric of the family.

This has not happened, Mr. Speaker, in this piece of legislation. The legislation has not dealt with such things as the right of the child to remain in the child's home. In fact, four principles of reform need to be incorporated in any law. One is that before any child is removed from his or her home for anything but the briefest emergency period, say, 72 hours, there must be a clear and convincing showing in due process hearings, where the child as well as the parents has counsel. That kind of positive commitment on the part of the government certainly should have been incorporated into this legislation. That's genuine protection — protection of the child as well as protection of the family. There is nothing in this legislation that in a positive kind of way guarantees, or even makes a commitment to, that kind of protection.

He goes on to suggest that there must be a strong presumption in favour of children remaining in their natural home or with relatives before a court removes a child from his or her nuclear or extended family. "It must be satisfied that no reasonable strategy of family crisis intervention can save the integrity of the home as a decent environment in which to bring up a child." That has to be satisfied first, and that kind of commitment should have been incorporated into this piece of legislation. In fact, it was incorporated in the original draft legislation that somehow disappeared before that draft became the final act itself.

It goes on to talk about the rights of children. Nowhere in this legislation is there any mention of the rights of children as persons in our society. It's not good enough just to say that one cannot legislate love, caring and nurturing, and those kinds of emotions. There are other kinds of guarantees that can be enshrined in legislation to ensure that children have their basic needs met — their basic needs of health care, education, shelter, nutrition. What those basic needs mean is that the government is establishing some kind of responsibility towards the children of this province. That is lacking in this legislation. In fact, any kind of responsibility for supplying any kind of enhancing services is lacking in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

The whole concept of the right of the child to have an advocate — of every child in this province to have an advocate to speak on its behalf — should have been enshrined in legislation as all-encompassing as a family and children's services bill. I'm quoting now:

"The question is asked that laws and legal rights do not enforce themselves. The history of the juvenile court, designed as a benign, non-adversary forum to determine the best interest of the child, teaches the lesson that children need their own independent and skilled advocate to state their case if they're not to be exploited."

We need that kind of commitment on the part of government to ensure that not just children in need of protection, not just the apprehended child, not just a child coming into custody, but every child in British Columbia should have this skilled and independent advocate. That should have been enshrined in this piece of legislation. It was enshrined in their original draft, and why it disappeared before it became part of the final act, Mr. Speaker, no one will ever know.

Times are changing; our society is changing. There are all kinds of hazards existing now, which we were not even aware of when the original Protection of Children Act was drafted. One of the things is the whole business of safety and health in terms of children. Those kinds of things have to be incorporated in legislation. We have to incorporate that when children are damaged as a result of the absence of occupational health and safety standards in terms of their parents' employment, they be protected too. That is a new concept that certainly is part of the evolution of recognizing the damage that can be done, even to unborn children, from the fact that their parents may have been exposed to things like lead and other pollutants. That kind of protection for those children has to be written into the law, but not even that has been taken into account.

The statistics show that again.... I'll use lead as an example of a toxic industrial substance. Lead has harmful effects on reproduction and in some instances has been taken into account in terms of setting exposure standards. Nonetheless, we have children who are damaged as a result of the occupational hazard that their parents are exposed to in the workplace. There is no way in law that the rights of those children can be protected, or there is no advocate in terms of insisting that regulatory laws and policies and watchdog agencies take into account their rights too. There is no children's compensation law, for example, patterned after the Workers Compensation Act; there are no special childrens' addenda attached to environmental impact studies and environmental impact decisions. We should be insisting on those kinds of things, because we are living in a world that's increasingly reaching levels of pollution. We're not ignoring that on behalf of adults: why are we ignoring it on behalf of children? But that is just one way in which this act has failed to deal with the rights of children in the sense of the twentieth century or even the twenty-first century, which we are living in now.

Mr. Speaker. the act, as I said before, mentions the word "family" in the title, and the word family is never mentioned again. For all intents and purposes, as far as this act is concerned, that's the end of the family. The act does not deal with the important question of the role of the superintendent. The draft legislation dealt with the role of the guardian of the child — to operate as an advocate, not just on behalf, as I said, of children in need but on behalf of all children in the province. It doesn't deal with the right of the child to have an opinion of its own. When one is dealing with children over a certain age and decisions are being made affecting their lives, they should be heard too. They should have a say and should be able to participate in the decisions which are being made affecting their lives. At least they should have the right to be heard. The act does not take that into account.

As I mentioned earlier, there are no commitments to the development of family and support services. There is no commitment even to the inclusion of community groups or community resources, or to encouraging the development of them, the building of them, the expansion of them, or even initiating them on behalf of children. In terms of the positive things that should be done on behalf of the children of British Columbia, positive statements on their behalf, and positive commitments by the government on their behalf, that is not incorporated in the act.

The act simply deals with amending the old Protection of Children Act, which deals, Mr. Speaker, as you may know, with children who have to come into custody, children who are being apprehended, and children who are being taken into care. But a family and children services act has to address

[ Page 4048 ]

itself to all of the children of the province and not just those particular children. That is a major weakness of this act. It concentrates entirely on children in need of protection and ignores completely any of the other children in the province.

The act makes a token gesture in the direction of native Indian children — and I will deal with that particular instance in more detail later.

As I mentioned earlier, there are a couple of basic things that the act could have dealt with. The act had it within its power to eliminate — wipe out once and for all — the legal impediments suffered by children born out of wedlock. No other province, as far as I know, hangs on to the concept of illegitimacy anymore. The original draft legislation, which I will be referring to again from time to time, did that. It actually eliminated the concept of illegitimacy. It said that for the purposes of services to children, whether or not the parents of a child were married to each other was of no import and was not to be taken into consideration. Yet that has disappeared from the act itself.

One is left to decide that there is one set of rules for legitimate children in this province and a completely different set of rules for illegitimate children. This is not a new debate or concept. It is not even an original idea. For a number of years now and certainly in a number of presentations to the minister over the last two years it was recommended that the concept of illegitimacy and the legal impediments suffered by children born out of wedlock be eliminated. That has not happened in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no protection whatsoever for the family in this act. Under section 10(l) of the act, for example, a mother's right can be wiped out without a hearing over the custody of the child. Section 10(1) is incredible in terms of its powers. Yet we read the press release that comes out with this piece of legislation and we are told that this act is making provision for the state and the parents to work together in maintaining the integrity of the family. You read the act and you find that the state has arbitrary powers and can decide to wipe out the rights of the parents without even a hearing. A parent can lose custody of a child without even a hearing.

Later on I will speak in more detail about some of the amendments which I have introduced in an attempt to try to do something with the act, but I could not get into this debate without expressing deep dissatisfaction and disappointment with the legislation as it now stands. I had in fact hoped as a result of seeing the draft that the bill would have been much better than it is.

One of the things I would like to suggest that the minister do right away is amend the title of the act to simply Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1980.

I'm sure that the minister must have looked at some of the other provinces and the kinds of legislation which they introduced. Earlier this year the province of New Brunswick introduced an act called Child and Family Services and Family Relations Act. It may not be a bad idea to read into the record the preamble to that particular piece of legislation. It's not a perfect act. There are some things wrong with it, I'm sure. But if we were to scrap the legislation which we have before us now and accept the New Brunswick act with a couple of amendments, the children of the province would be much better served — no question about it.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should have indicated at the beginning that I am the designated speaker.

The preamble of the New Brunswick Child and Family Services and Family Relations Act states:

"Whereas the family exists as a basic unit of society and its well-being is inseparable from the common well-being;

"Whereas the rights of the child are enjoyed either of himself or of family;

"Whereas children have basic rights and fundamental freedoms no less than those of adults: a right to special safeguards and assistance in the preservation of those rights and freedoms and in the application of the principles stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights and elsewhere, and a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes that lead to decisions that affect them and that they are capable of understanding;

"Whereas children are entitled in every instance where they have rights or freedoms which may be affected by this act to be informed as to what those rights and freedoms are and where they are capable of understanding;

"Whereas it is recognized that the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of children and their families include a right to the least invasion of privacy and interference with freedom that is compatible with their own interests and those of their families and societies;

"Whereas it is accepted that parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children and that children should only be removed from parental supervision, either partly or entirely, when all other measures are inappropriate;

"Whereas it is acknowledged that when it is necessary to remove children from the care and supervision of their parents, they should be provided for as nearly as possible as if they were under the care and protection of wise and conscientious parents;

"Whereas it is recognized that elderly disabled and dependent persons are entitled to protection and can benefit from social services which ensure the opportunity for personal development;

"Whereas it is recognized that social services are essential to prevent or alleviate the social and related economic problems of individuals and families;

"Whereas it is recognized that the rights of children, families and individuals must be guaranteed by the rule of law and that the province's intervention into the affairs of individuals and families, so as to protect and affirm these rights, must be governed by the rule of law;

"Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, enacts as follows...."

And it goes on, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the legislation.

The commitment is very clearly stated there. You compare that with this act of four or five pages, which makes no commitments and says nothing whatsoever about the rights of the children, family or anything. It just immediately starts dealing with children being taken into care. It says: "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia enacts, as follows...." It goes immediately into talking about custody, special-care agreements and what happens in the event of the disintegration of the family and children in need — rather than first of all stating clearly and categorically what

[ Page 4049 ]

the government perceives as the basic rights of children, the family and the community. There should be a simple statement as introduction, and then it should go on to make commitments in the act itself — to help realize the beliefs outlined in the preamble.

In the act it takes into account such things as the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can be reasonably ascertained. It talks about making decisions which take into account the effect upon the child of any disruption of the child's sense of continuity, and the love, affection and ties that exist between the child and each person to whom the child's custody is entrusted, each person to whom access to the child is guaranteed and, where appropriate, each sibling of the child. It talks about making decisions which take into account the need to provide a secure environment that would permit the child to become a useful and productive member of society through the achievement of his full potential according to his individual capacity. It also demands that one take into account the child's cultural and religious heritage.

None of these things have been dealt with in this piece of legislation. What we have before us are 12 pages talking about what happens when the family has fallen apart, when it's disintegrating, and when children get into trouble, are abused and end up before the courts. Protection of children legislation is important. The old Protection of Children Act needed to be amended. If that was all that minister intended to do, fair enough. This act should have been called An Amendment to the Protection of Children Act, 1980, and, as such, tabled in the House. But after two years and 1,500 briefs and at least a year spent on a piece of draft legislation, I think we're entitled to more than 12 pages dealing with the disintegration of the family and the protection of children in crisis and in need of care.

I don't know whether the minister has a copy of the New Brunswick legislation or not, but it's certainly in the library. That is where I got this copy from. I would like to recommend it to her. I would like to recommend to her the section of the act that deals with the ministry's obligations to provide for research to be undertaken to determine the social services needed within the province, and then establish and operate social service programs and agencies in accordance with this need; to provide, in accordance with regulations, resources for the establishment and operation of social service programs and services, which, in the minister's opinion, enhance the life of the child. It also talks about the involvement of the community at large. None of these things are touched on in this particular act.

On page 66 of that act it deals with the question of parentage, which I mentioned earlier, and says: "For all purposes of the law of the province, a person is the child of his or her natural parents, and his or her status as their child is independent of whether the child is born within or without marriage." I am truly appalled that in 1980 we still have legislation on the books that does not take into account.... The concept of illegitimacy is archaic and discriminatory and should not be tolerated — certainly not in a piece of legislation which is committed to families and to children.

I would also like to draw the minister's attention to an act respecting family services in Saskatchewan, which, again, quite opposite to the 12 pages that the minister has tabled in the House, deals with some of the positive responsibilities and positive commitments that the government — or the state, if one wants to use that word — has towards enhancing the family. Unlike this particular legislation, throughout the entire act there are references to ways in which a family can be supported and enhanced to survive, to hold together, rather than to fall apart. In section 5, for example, it says:

''Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister may do such things as he considers advisable to promote the growth and development of community services and resources designed to support families in the proper care of their children, and to prevent circumstances that lead to family breakdown."

It goes on to say in section 7 — and this is a different act I'm recommending to the minister — that "the minister may make such payments as he considers necessary to or for the benefit of a parent, child or other person where special services or money are considered by the minister as essential to enable the parent to care for the child." In dealing with the question of native Indian children, that's a very important recommendation, because as the minister will remember from her own visit to the homemaker conference, that was certainly one of the issues raised — financial support to make it possible.

I have just a couple of statistics, Mr. Speaker, so that we know who the people affected by the act are. The statistical report for the department for the year 1978-79 shows that there were a total of 4,602 children brought into care during that year, of which 2,191 came because of parental failure, because of abandonment, and more than half — 2,540 — came as a direct result of the failure of the family to be able to cope with parenting the children. There were a couple because of physical or mental illness and other things, but most of the children came in because of parental failure, and an additional number came because of abandonment. As the act deals with those particular kids, that's fair enough. But the title of the act leaves one with the impression that it deals with services to families and to children, and the minister, in her opening remarks and in her press release, tells us that this act is the result of 1,500 submissions and two years of work. If that's the case, that's just not good enough. That is definitely not the case.

The minister told us that she received a number of complimentary responses to the legislation, but she didn't name any. However, I've received some responses to the legislation — or some carbon copies of some responses which the minister received — and maybe, Mr. Speaker, I can enter them into the record on her behalf.

The British Columbia Association of Social Workers, for example, have made it absolutely clear how disappointed they are with the legislation. When one realizes that, aside from the judges and the people in family court, the people who will be dealing with this legislation are social workers, it's interesting to hear their response to it. The main points of the brief which they presented were that, first, the need to accord children basic rights such as adequate care, food, shelter, education and health services is not included. Secondly, the responsibility of the government to provide a range of services including preventive services that promote the fullest development and welfare of children and families is not included in this legislation. The need for the establishment of the role of child advocate for all of the children of the province is not included in this legislation. The need for the establishment of the role of child advocate for all of the children of the province is not included in this legislation.

[ Page 4050 ]

They complimented the minister on the fact that the language of the act was very clear and easy to read, and I certainly join with them in that. One can read the act through in ten minutes. It's only 12 pages, and it doesn't really say very much of anything except that it amends the Protection of Children Act and has a token gesture in the direction of native children.

The Association of Social Workers — I repeat, the people who are primarily going to be working with this piece of legislation — have made it absolutely clear how disappointed they are. First of all, Mr. Justice Berger's recommendations were brought down in the B.C. Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, then the review was conducted by the superintendent of child welfare over the past year — that's the 1,500 briefs — and the end result is the absence of children's rights, the absence of government responsibility and the fact that even in dealing with the protection of children the legislation does not ensure immediate and effective protection of children in situations that jeopardize their safety, physical health or emotional well-being. It says responsibility must rest not only on parents to avoid situations that jeopardize the well-being of children, but also on the government to respond quickly and productively when neglect or abuse is identified. Legislation should spell out clearly the circumstances under which the state is required to intervene in family life. It goes on to talk about the failure to provide for the special needs of children, and the other point I mentioned about community concern. Legislation should seek to promote a climate of local community concern for children by encouraging citizens' activities designated to promote the welfare of families and children. This act does the very opposite. The lay panels — a pilot project that was put into place and worked in those areas where they were put into place — have completely disappeared from this act. They were in the draft, which I have in my possession, but in the final act somehow they disappeared.

The social worker brief talks about how legislation should ensure that provision for children's advocacy is built into the structures of government policy-making. It is a major concern of social workers that some children, following their admission to government care, experience a great deal of disruption in their lives. Frequent moves to different foster or group homes, loss of contact with their natural families — and, of course, they're never told; nobody ever tells the children anything; these decisions are made on their behalf and then they're informed afterwards. The recommendation is that the traditional advocacy role of the B.C. superintendent of child welfare, which should have been expanded, has in this act been reduced to a minimum. An advocacy role must be explicitly included in any kind of legislation. Their recommendation was that the scope of the proposed legislation should be expanded to deal with the status and rights of children, family support services and the structure of the children's advocacy at both government and community level.

The other group responded in some more detail, and I think we should say some of the positive things that they said about the act, because I want to be fair to the Association of Social Workers. I don't want to give a biased accounting of their presentation by any means. The association welcomes the elimination of current provisions that make unmanageability an offence. I certainly agree with that. As a person who worked for the children's aid, I could never accept children being brought into care because they were incorrigible. To me that was not the failure of the child; that was the failure of the parents or of someone else. If anybody is going to be brought into care because a child is incorrigible, it should be the parents, not the child. So along with the association I certainly welcome the elimination of that as one of the reasons for bringing the child into care. They are also pleased with the decision to include in Bill 45 matters previously relegated to regulations. Finally, they said they welcomed the setting of time limits as to the commencement of judicial proceedings to determine a child's need for protection. I'm going to deal with that in more detail later.

The other area which the bill touches on, and which I support of course, is extending services and coverage to children aged 19. This business of ceasing to be a child at 17 and not becoming an adult until you're 19 was a very destructive one and made it impossible for children in the 18-to-19 age group to get the kinds of services they should have. I certainly support that inclusion in the act.

It goes on to say that the association's main concern regarding Bill 45 is that it is not a family and services act; it is a protection act. Nowhere does it provide for the legal responsibility of the government to develop and provide services aimed at supporting and strengthening the family. I've dealt with a number of these things, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not going to go into them in detail again. I think I have covered them myself.

The other group which the minister heard from but didn't mention was the Social Planning and Review Council of British Columbia — SPARC. The Coalition on Youth and the Law sent a letter to every member of the Legislature dealing with the legislation and asking that the debate on the bill be delayed so that there could be more community input, since the act had very clearly ignored the 1,500 submissions brought to its attention. Again it dealt with the same basic concerns. Like the Ministry of Health, which is concerned with sickness rather than with health, the bill is concerned with the negative aspects of the life of children and families and has nothing about the positive aspects, nothing about the responsibilities of the government in terms of developing services or resources to support the family, and deals specifically only with the disintegration of the family. That is another group which submitted a letter and also asked the minister to delay passage of the bill until there could be more input.

The third group I'm sure the minister heard from — in case she hasn't had a chance to read this — is the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations. They have made the same request, that the bill be put over and not be passed at this time, because it did not deal with a number of the positive recommendations which they included in their submissions to the superintendent. It needed massive amendments. It needed to have its title changed, as I've said, so that it deals with protection and is known as an amendment to the protection act, or else it needs to be expanded greatly in positive ways, ways which deal with delivery of resources, services and guarantees of the rights of children.

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the way in which the Indian children were treated in this particular legislation. I think it's necessary that we should give some attention to them, especially since the minister herself admitted that of the number of children taken into care each year something near 40 percent are native Indians. As I've said before, the one pilot project introduced in 1977, I think, in Richmond and some other areas in the south Fraser Valley —

[ Page 4051 ]

which the lay panels certainly saw as positive and wanted to have expanded — has been eliminated. I want to read into the record a letter from Chief Judge Lawrence Goulet to the Deputy Attorney-General. Probably the mistake was sending it to the Deputy Attorney-General; it should have gone to the Minister or Deputy Minister of Human Resources. It's dated June 27, 1980.

"Dear Mr. Vogel:

"As you know, some of our judges in the rural areas take an active interest in native Indian problems as they relate to the judicial system. As you will see from the attached letter from His Honour Judge Shupe, his involvement has resulted in his request on behalf of native Indian family committees to bring into play the lay panels that were originally the subject of experimentation in Surrey and Richmond under the unified family court. It has always been my contention that the provision was enacted primarily to give native Indians a strong voice in hearings under the Protection of Children Act, but that the area chosen contained very few native Indians and therefore the lay panel experiment never had a chance.

"For that reason I'm pleased to forward Judge Shupe's recommendation, with my endorsement that it be favourably considered.

                                                                                                               Lawrence S. Goulet

                                                                                                               Chief Judge  

                                                                                                               Provincial Court"

He includes the letter from Judge Shupe, provincial court judge, dated June 17, 1980, in which he very strongly supported that section 8 of the old Protection of Children Act, which deals with the appointment of lay panels, be proclaimed. That section of the act was never proclaimed, and now we find that it's totally disappeared from the new legislation. That was a bad decision, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister didn't mention it, but she has received cables from the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, the Alliance of Indian Bands, the North Coast Tribal Council, the Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council, the Cariboo Tribal Council, the B.C. Native Women's Society, the Lakes District Tribal Council and the Professional Native Women's Association. I know that she did receive a very long telegram from that group, asking that lay panels be reintroduced in Bill 45. It's quite possible that the minister has prepared an amendment and it's not on the order paper yet. The telegram says:

THE B.C. NATIVE COURT WORKERS AND COUNSELLING ASSOCIATION HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIVE INDIAN INVOLVEMENT THROUGH LAY PANELS FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS. In 1977 YOUR GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ACCEPTED THIS DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE B.C. NATIVE COURT WORKERS AND COUNSELLING ASSOCIATION, AS PARTICIPANTS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE B.C. NATIVE COURT WORKERS AND COUNSELLING ASSOCIATION. THE POSITION PAPER REFLECTS AS WELL THE CONCERNS OF THE UNITED NATIVE NATIONS SOCIETY. WE THEREFORE OBJECT TO THE PRESENT ATTEMPT TO DELETE THIS SECTION OF THE ACT IN A UNILATERAL MANNER, WITHOUT HAVING MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO INSTITUTE THE ONE OPTION AVAILABLE AND OPEN TO NATIVE INDIAN PEOPLE'S INVOLVEMENT. SUCH A MOVE CAN ONLY REINFORCE THE SYSTEM OF CULTURAL GENOCIDE, WHICH PUNISHES NATIVE INDIANS FOR OUR POVERTY BY SEIZING OUR CHILDREN AND PLACING THEM IN NON-NATIVE FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS. RATHER THAN DELETING THE OPTION OF LAY PANELS, NATIVE INDIAN INVOLVEMENT THROUGH LAY PANELS SHOULD BE INSCRIBED NOT ONLY IN THE REGULATIONS BUT IN THE LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. JUSTIFYING THE REMOVAL OF AN AVENUE OF INVOLVEMENT FOR NATIVE ACTION THROWS MORE THAN A SHADOW OF DOUBT ON THE ATTITUDE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TOWARD THE FUTURE OF NATIVE INDIAN CHILDREN IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. TO FULFIL YOUR OBLIGATION TO OUR PEOPLE, THE REQUESTED MORATORIUM IS YOUR ONLY COURSE OF ACTION.

And they have asked, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 45, this particular piece of legislation, not be dealt with at this time until the native Indian community has had an opportunity to state their case both to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), explaining why it's so important that there be positive involvement in all decisions affecting what happens to their children — not just the children who come into care, but all of their children.

Mr. Speaker. there is another very long cable which I'm not going to read in its entirety, but it's from the Merritt-Kamloops-Bonaparte-Chase-Deadman Creek family and child welfare committee, and again it's talking about the deletion of section 8(b) of the protection act, the one dealing with the lay panel, and asking that there be a moratorium so that they can come and meet with the minister and present their case. They then went on to say that "the decision to eliminate the lay panel based on an evaluation of the Surrey unified family court was not fair." Certainly the minister is going to have to take into account some of these requests. They point out that not all status children are registered, so the amendment which the minister has tabled dealing with that particular section of the act does not afford the native Indian children the protection that they should have. That is not sufficient. Notifying the chief of the band and the communities is not sufficient; even notifying the committees themselves — but the panel was certainly one way in which they had some direct input. As a matter of fact, at the homemakers' conference which the minister attended, what the homemakers are asking for was the strengthening of the mandate of the panel, giving the panels real teeth, not just to advise, but to have some real power over decisions that were being made affecting the children's lives.

I recognize that this is different, that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs want full responsibility to themselves for their children. They don't want the Ministry of Human Resources to deal with that, so I know that there are two sides to the story. But to the extent that the ministry has to deal with these children, what they were asking for was some strengthening of those panels — lo and behold, when the legislation is tabled in the House, we find that the panels have disappeared.

There is another cable from Ray Jones, president of the Gitskan-Carrier tribal council, requesting that "a moratorium be placed on further discussion pertaining to Bill 45 until such time as native Indian people have been consulted and thoroughly involved in revising the legislation that affects the lives of a great number of native Indian children."

Native Indian involvement, from both on and off reserve, in child apprehension adoption is extremely crucial when today approximately 45 percent of apprehended children involve the lives of native Indian children. That's his.

There is another telegram from the president of the Professional Native Women's Association. It says:

[ Page 4052 ]

THE PROFESSIONAL NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF INDIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESSING OF BILL 45. OUR SPECIAL CONCERN IS THE DELETION OF LAY PANELS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE PROFESSIONAL NATIVE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BILL AS IT STANDS.

I'm not going to deal any further with this, because I know that there are certain members of my caucus who have very large Indian communities in their particular ridings, and they can give you much more detail and deal much more effectively and efficiently with that particular issue than I can.

I want to suggest that in an attempt to try to improve the bill, I have tabled a number of amendments, and I will certainly deal with those when the bill goes into committee.

I just want to speak very briefly about the draft legislation which somehow disappeared on its way to being law. The first thing I want to say about it is that it certainly reflects the 1,500 submissions. It is a comprehensive act that had 95 clauses in it, as opposed to this 12-page thing which really deals with only one section of the act. It includes all services to family and children and is indeed really a family and child act. I guess the minister is wondering where I got the draft from. I think it is a good draft. I think the minister should be very proud of it and should have introduced it. All of the criticisms that have been levelled against the present legislation were dealt with in the draft. It was a bit verbose and long, but it could have been tightened up and made a bit shorter. It would have met all the prerequisites that one would have for legislation dealing with the family and services to the family and to children.

Certainly in terms of the role of the guardian or the ombudsman who would operate as the advocate on behalf of all of the children of the province, that is precisely what all of the briefs coming from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, foster parents, SPARC, and everyone else who has read the legislation are saying. It is certainly what one sees reflected in legislation from New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and other areas — an ombudsman to work on behalf of children. That was incorporated in this: "A guardian of children shall be appointed under the Public Service Act." It talks about the role and the legal rights of the guardian.

It also includes details of all of the services for family in the community that the government has established as its responsibility to provide. It defines and develops resources such as counselling and day care within the community and talks about there being a budget to make it possible to develop these services and to maintain them. I certainly think that should have been included in this 12-page thing that we now have in front of us.

It talks about the status of children, defines the rights of children and incorporates those rights into the legislation. It does precisely what the minister, in her opening comments, said couldn't be done.

Most important of all, it deals with the parentage issue. It says: "For all purposes under the laws of the province of British Columbia the relationship between every person and their father and mother shall be determined irrespective of whether the father and mother are or have been married to each other." It goes on to say: "The status of illegitimacy does not exist under the laws of the province." It was right here in the draft. It's very difficult to understand why it has disappeared from the final act itself. It's certainly a very major step, which one had been led to hope that the government was prepared to take at this time.

What we find is a draft that's committed to families and children. That's discarded, thrown aside, and instead a bill is introduced that deals only with the disintegration of the family and crises affecting children. Instead of a bill that enhances the relationship between the parent, the child and the state, we end up with a bill that concentrates on destroying the relationship between those three parties, and concentrates on the disintegration of the family. That.'s what we finally get.

What does that tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the commitment of this government to the family and to children? It's really great when you can change the name of International Year of the Child to International Year of the Child and Family and print up buttons, song books, scrolls and all that kind of thing. That's great when you can do that!

It's wonderful to introduce legislation called Family and Child Service Act and never once mention the word family again after that. It's easy enough to stand up and make pious statements about the family. Yet everything that ministry does, Mr. Speaker, deals with the disintegration of the family. There is absolutely no commitment whatsoever to strengthening or enhancing the family. And it was all here in the draft legislation. It talks about the parents, and it talks about the government's commitment through which families and children may obtain services and assistance in a fashion that will result in the family remaining intact by not suffering a separation between the child and the parents. It's right here in the draft! "The purpose of this act is to provide the necessary processes through which families and children may obtain services and assistance in a fashion that will result in the family remaining intact by not suffering a separation between the child and the parents." Why didn't that appear in the finished act? Why was that deleted? Why was that taken away?

Then he talks about protecting the rights of the family. It gives the director upon the request of an individual, a family or the community.... It gives a social worker the right to inquire into the circumstances of the family before they make any decisions about them. It ascertains the extent by which the relatives of the family can lend assistance to support the family and the child so as to keep them together. All of these positive commitments to the family were discarded by that government. Instead, what we have are 12 pages dealing with the protection of children and a title referring to it as a Family and Children Services Act. There's nothing in that legislation that has anything to do with the family. The only time the word "family" appears is in the title. It's never used again. The draft legislation that did deal with services to family and the children was discarded — never used.

We have the problems arising with the child-abuse registry. The only mention in this legislation about the child abuse registry is that you've a responsibility to report it. If you don't report a suspected case of abuse, you're contravening the law. In this particular piece of the draft legislation it spells out in pages the details about parents having access to the files. When the report is found to have had no basis in fact and cannot be substantiated, that complaint is expunged. It's right here in the legislation under the draft act, in sections 85 to 89. I'll read the exact words. In section 90(l) of the draft act it says: "Information contained in the registry may be expunged where the probative value of the information is so doubtful as to outweigh its validity." The minister gave a commitment to do precisely that in a letter dated March of

[ Page 4053 ]

this year, which I mentioned in question period today. Apparently it's in the draft act. It doesn't show up anywhere in the final act, which is tabled in the House.

We have the issue, which was dealt with in the newspaper today, of information being kept on record for seven years. It says: "The said information contained in the registry may be expunged where it has been determined that the information in the report is unfounded as a result of any of the following: the investigation of the ministry or a successful appeal to the courts for expungement." It's all here, Mr. Speaker. It was all included in this particular draft legislation. Yet it was discarded. It also says: "A person who is the subject of any report, providing that the information as to the source and name of the complainant is protected, shall have access to that information." It's all here. The civil rights of the person who has had a complaint against him are protected. If that person turns out to be an innocent person — if it was a crank call or an unsubstantiated call — it's right here in the draft legislation that it can be expunged; it can be wiped out of the record and no reporting of it is kept. Yet we find that in the final act there is no mention whatsoever of this.

I just want to say in closing that I support the recommendations of those people who have suggested that this bill be hoisted until there is more public input, which is treated with a little bit more respect than was given to the 1,500 briefs which were submitted. I would like to suggest that rather than debate Bill 45, the minister should table with the House the original draft and that it be what we debate. It bears a much closer resemblance to what an act dealing with services to the family and children of the province should deal with. It certainly has much more input from the community at large than is included in that amendment to the Protection of Children Act. If she is willing to amend the title of that legislation to the Protection of Children Amendment Act, fair enough. Then we can debate it as an amendment to the Protection of Children Act. But it is not an act dealing with services either to families or to children. As such, it should not be supported.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few very brief comments before we proceed with this legislation this afternoon. The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has very clearly and ably demonstrated to this House the kind of legislation that should be before us. Certainly for me, and I believe for all members on this side, she has made the case for why this legislation should be withdrawn. I want to make that point and another subsequently.

The first is that there had been indication to the community that there would be significant community input prior to the introduction of such legislation. There was that considerable community input. There was, as a result of that input, work done within the ministry leading to a piece of legislation that could be brought before this Legislature. Those people who put a lot of time, effort, work and thought into presenting those briefs for this legislation have been betrayed by this minister when she introduced this minor amendment rather than the comprehensive legislation that had been discussed. Perhaps she might be able to explain in her closing remarks why it is that she has still not dealt with the rights of children in this province. There's no reference to all of the principles contained in the 1979 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. There's no reflection whatsoever in law of all the comments and good words that were said last year about children during the UN Year of the Child. A lot of words, rhetoric and PR hype, but when it comes to the legislation that should follow that PR hype, what do we get? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The minister should explain why that has happened.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I had intended to deal with the briefs that the foster parents, the Association of Social Workers, SPARC, social workers, foster parents, and a variety of Indian organizations in B.C. had presented, but the member for Burnaby–Edmonds has done that in some detail.

What I want to do specifically is to reiterate the concerns raised by that member concerning native children in this province. It is disgraceful that 40 percent of the children taken into care in this province are natives. It's absolutely disgraceful. In the white community we talk about apprehensions of children. Sometimes in the native community the word abduction might be more appropriate. We have our white middle-class values that we impose on a native population in this province who have another set of values. We tend to impose our values on their families and abduct their children based on our values and not theirs. That is disgraceful in this province. I agree there are problems in native communities that lead to the requirement for apprehensions on occasion, but not at the rate that apprehensions take place today. Those apprehensions take place at the rate they do today simply because of our white middle-class values that cannot accept that there are different ways to conduct family behaviour and there are different ways to raise children.

If we're ever going to have any progress in terms of native affairs in this province, we're going to have to allow a little bit of self-government, a little bit of cultural self-government, a little bit of economic self-government, and a little bit of self-government when it comes to native families in our province. The minister, the ministry and the government have not ever understood that basic concept in this province, and it's about time we began to deal with that.

I am appalled that 40 percent of the kids apprehended in this province are natives. I'm also appalled that there aren't as many kids apprehended as there are.... I know there's a debate among social workers about apprehensions. I know there are some social workers who are quite keen to apprehend. There are other social workers who will not apprehend under almost any circumstances. They'll fight to the last bit of strength they have in their bodies to prevent having to go to that final miserable step of apprehension, which no one wants to do. The whole focus of child protection in this province should be aimed at preventing apprehension, aimed at providing services and an attitude that leads to a situation where we do not have apprehensions. I don't believe the legislation in any way begins even to touch that very fundamental problem.

In native situations, Mr. Speaker, where families are large and many people on many reservations are related to each other, why not allow those kids to stay with part of their very extended family by providing the financial resources to allow them to do that? The reason we don't allow that is because we have a different, white culture where we don't have that kind of massively extended family. That's why. Because we impose our white values on another culture in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to leave it at that. I think that in

[ Page 4054 ]

concluding I want to suggest to the minister in a non-partisan way — as best I'm able to do that, as one of the more partisan members in this House — that she should have this bill withdrawn until the next legislative session, whether that be later this fall or early next year. That's when that bill should be debated, so those 1,500 groups who made presentations to the ministry can have an opportunity to come back at the minister and discuss with her the proposals in this legislation. Give these groups and organizations, who are out there in the field dealing with the problem every day, an opportunity to discuss and debate it, and maybe next year we can come up with some legislation that's appropriate to the needs of children in this province. This legislation does not meet that requirement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I just want to respond to the member who has taken his place, because that's probably more in people's minds in the gallery at this present time. Let me just say that I just can't believe that that member, who comes from upper Vancouver Island and has native Indian people in his constituency, would be so ignorant of the facts of how native Indian children are taken in.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the House Leader wishes to.... Let me just respond to the member for North Island; I would just like to finish in response.

The member says that 40 percent of native Indian children taken into care is a disgrace. First of all, let me tell him that it's 30 percent, and, yes, it is disgraceful. When figures become that large it is a worry to all of us. But let me just say this....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am told that 39 percent of native Indian children are taken into care, of which 30 percent are put into native Indian homes.

But let me just emphasize that word "disgraceful." He said it should be called abduction. Let me say that in explaining what he felt was disgraceful he said that it was disgraceful that we enforce a standard of living on native Indian families. Mr. Speaker, I think it's disgraceful that that member accepts that the standard of living which we put in place for the native Indian child should be any less than in the non-Indian community.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That was the inference which that member left.

Now I did not interrupt him while he was speaking, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nevertheless, hon. member, a point of order has been raised. It is the responsibility of the Chair to hear the point of order.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, I would not have interrupted the minister, but she has deliberately distorted what I have said. I was not talking about standard of living. She's a liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would ask the Minister of Human Resources to take her place at this moment. I must ask the member for North Island to withdraw.

MR. GABELMANN: I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his immediate withdrawal.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that when a native Indian child or any child is taken into care in the province, it is because they have need of the care of someone other than that of their natural parents. This ministry and this government believe that the care for that child should be the same as for all children. We don't differentiate between native Indian children and non-native Indian children; we want the same care.

The member who took his place last seems to think there should be a standard for one and a standard for others; I say there should not be. We should expect the best care for all the children of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also going to correct the member who suggested that the placement in the extended family....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if you could keep the member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) a little silent, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to be very silent during her address to the House today.

The placement of native Indian children on reserves is with the Ministry of Indian Affairs in the federal government. The placement of Indian children in the homes of native Indian families goes on all the time. Payment is given for a placement on a reserve. Even the member for Burnaby–Edmonds doesn't seem to know that the Department of Indian Affairs on reservations has that policy. When this ministry takes over off reservation, we too have that policy. We have a policy of placing children in the homes of relatives when native Indian families can be found, and 30 percent of the native Indian children are in those homes. It is really regretful that we can find no more than 30 percent. We do our best to find them but we cannot do any more, much as we try. We are getting the cooperation of the homemaker services of the Indian bands to assist us in that. The community input was very great.

Now I see from the statements from the members opposite that 1,200 submissions — not 1,500, Madam Member — are not sufficient; that a year and a half of debate throughout the province is not sufficient. Well, I think it is, and I think what we have before us is a very good bill.

I would just correct one other thing so that the impression is not left overnight...because there is no question in my mind that the member for Burnaby–Edmonds is trying to impart a scare tactic by the fact that she should make mention that children are being taken away from mothers. Please take a look at section 10(l) regarding apprehension. It's a complete distortion of that section to think that there is no reference to the court, as the member said. That's completely misleading, Mr. Speaker — absolutely, completely erroneous and misleading. All through this act there are checks and balances. In every case, even when parents have

[ Page 4055 ]

forfeited their right — truthfully, morally and in every other way — to have that child in their home because of abuse that is so indescribable that I don't wish to mention it, the protection of the court is still there. We cannot go in and take people and abduct them, as the member has tried to leave in the minds and the hearts of the families in this province.

Finally, I can say that there is no question that the parents are the best ombudsmen for 98 percent of our children. This act does address keeping families together; that's our complete policy in our ministry. We do not want to take that right of parents away and give it to a bureaucrat who would not reinforce and support families in this province. I suggest to you that the member for Burnaby–Edmonds' model is "big daddy" instead of "big brother," but that's the philosophy — and it's a difference of philosophy on the floor of this House. I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to stand in my place and uphold an act which does indeed, in spite of the words from the member for Burnaby–Edmonds, who took a long time to make very little criticism of a bill which does indeed, for the first time in this province, address family and children's services and provides them in this....

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 45, Family and Child Service Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill PR 403. I understand the hon. member Mr. Cocke is in agreement.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT
(continued)

MR. RITCHIE: There's no need for me to add further to what has already been said about this bill, other than that it removes the uncertainty that has been there in respect to the one-year lease. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill PR 403, An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill PR 404, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act. It is to have the provisions of section 3 in that act coincide with the provisions in the Royal Canadian Legion act of Canada. More particularly, it is to allow the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion and every branch of the legion in British Columbia to acquire, hold and dispose of property. It also contains a provision whereby no branch shall, without the consent of the command, alienate its real or personal property, except in the usual course of its activities.

This bill has been through the private bills committee and has been considered by all sides of the House in that committee.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill PR 404, An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 4056 ]

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

39 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 39) intituled Mines Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) In the definition of "coal mine" by inserting "exploring," after "prospecting,",

(b) In the definition of "mine" by inserting "exploring," after "prospecting,", and

(c) In the definition of "owner" by inserting "only" after "receives" in paragraph (a).

Section 4 (3):

(a) By inserting "Notwithstanding subsection (2)," at the beginning, and

(b) By inserting "independent" before "examination" in paragraph (a).

Section 19 (4), line 4:

By inserting ", not longer than 24 months," after "subsequent intervals".

Section 37:

(a) By adding the following after section 37 (3) (c):

        "(d) limit, restrict or prohibit, for a prescribed period of time, exploration or development of uranium, where the uranium exceeds a prescribed amount or proportion, within any or all mines, and to close, in the interest of health or safety, any mining operation in which uranium in the prescribed amount or proportion is found."

(b) By adding the following after section 37 (6):

        "(7) Where a regulation is made under this section respecting a matter referred to in subsection (3) (d) and under that regulation

        (a) exploration or development is limited, restricted or prohibited, or

        (b) a mining operation is closed,

             the chief inspector may, on conditions ordered by him, consent to

        (c) the recommencement of exploration or development, or

        (d) the opening of a mining operation that has been closed under that regulation.

Section 38 (5), line 1:

By deleting "owner, agent or manager" and substituting "owner, agent and manager".