[ Page 6471 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Labour dispute at Insurance Corporation. Mr. Hall –– 6471

Ministry of Tourism automobiles. Mr. Hall –– 6472

International Year of the Disabled grants. Ms. Brown –– 6472

Government employment of George Lenko. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 6472

College funding. Mr. Stupich –– 6473

Conversion of Barclay St. apartments. Hon. Mr. Hyndman replies –– 6473

Tabling Documents

BCSC annual report for the year ending March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6474

Metro Transit Operating Company annual report for the year 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6474

Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6474

Mr. Barnes –– 6475

Mr. Barrett –– 6476

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6476

Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 2 –– 6477

Mr. Lauk

Third reading –– 6477

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2) 1981 (Bill 31). Second reading.

Mr. Barrett –– 6477

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6479

Provincial Debt Repayment Act (Bill 14). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 1 –– 6479

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Third reading –– 6480

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 140: minister's office –– 6481

Mr. Hall

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

On vote 141: ministerial management and policy development –– 6489

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 141 –– 6489

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

On vote 142: industrial relations and occupational safety –– 6489

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 142 –– 6489

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

On vote 143: manpower –– 6490

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

Mr. Nicolson

On vote 147: building occupancy charges –– 6490

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Gardom)

On vote 137: minister's office –– 6491

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Hall

Tabling Documents

Auditor-General's annual return for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6491

Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act. Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6491

An Act To Amend The Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act. Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6491

Erratum –– 6492

Appendix –– 6492

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to ask this assembly to join me today in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to convey our deepest sympathy to the family of that outstanding and courageous young Canadian, Terry Fox. Following my remarks and those of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I further request that all members observe a few moments' silence in tribute to Terry Fox's memory.

I might say that not just British Columbians but all Canadians are very proud of Terry, and they are also proud of this family. The difficulties he experienced and the courage he displayed must certainly be attributes that he learned from his family. For their courage in helping him cope with his illness and their determination to encourage him when he chose to inspire all Canadians to find their conscience in fighting cancer, certainly all of us should be proud of the whole Fox family.

When I learned of Terry's death, like every other Canadian, I was saddened, yet it made me think of a few lines from a song that was made popular a few years ago. It went something like this: "You light up my life; you give me hope to carry on." Terry certainly lit up every Canadian's life with pride. He set an example for every Canadian, young and old. In a country where quite often we are so well blessed that it's our nature to be petty and critical and sometimes bitter, he gave us a larger perspective of life. I think of thousands of sufferers of the dreaded disease, cancer, to whom Terry's determination and courage gave hope to carry on. His fight wasn't just against cancer but against all disease. He touched the heart of Canadians in a way that no one has before nor, I believe, will in the future. They rediscovered their generosity and concern for one another and responded in a monetary way with millions of dollars; they also responded in a human way, which is far more worthwhile for them.

Terry has passed away and his spirit is living on. I think it would be timely if all the young people in this country examined their own motives and standards against those set by Terry Fox, and it might be a way in which they could guide their lives in the future. Families should re-examine the way they live and work together in light of the courage displayed by the Fox family. Perhaps that also will be a worthwhile memorial to Terry Fox, for Terry Fox has taught us all a lessen in humility, determination and raw courage, and we must not fail him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of another time when so many words have been spread across this nation — and perhaps North America — related to one person. It is very unusual for one so young to have accomplished so much. To me the most lasting memory of young Terry Fox will be his commitment to the dignity of the human spirit. The particular struggle this young man had with a crippling disease became a focus for his extending his life beyond his particular personal problem, and it became a challenge for all of us to examine our own course in life and our own influence on ourselves and people around us.

At a time when we fear many things in this world and are unsure of anything beyond this world, it is important that we examine our own faiths, commitments and philosophies about life and the purpose of life. That young man had no problem in defining his purpose in life; that young man demonstrated that there is hope in life, that there are challenges that can be overcome and that the purpose of existence is obviously beyond anything we can gain materially. My memories of Terry Fox will be those of a young man, clean, pure and simple, committed to restoring faith in the dignity of humankind. In such a short period of time, his message went beyond any nation and any continent — it was universal.

There is in our Judaeo-Christian heritage a joy in death. I would think that Terry Fox would ask us to examine that joy in death today, with a commitment to tomorrow and the future. All of us, young and old, have missed something that that young boy had in his short life. We have a commitment to attain that goal that he attained. I want to echo the Premier's statements to the parents, to the medical staff and to his friends. The parents, Dr. Antonik, Dr. Heffelfinger and that whole community gave an expression of love to Terry Fox that was unequalled. There's nothing more that any of us can say except a public commitment that we shall never forget the simplicity, the sincerity and the dignity of that young man and his statement about life that meant so much to all of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we all rise for 60 seconds?

The House observed a one-minute silence.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE AT
INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. HALL: I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. The ICBC labour dispute has now gone on for 150 days. Could the minister advise the House if he has acted personally at any time to achieve a solution in this dispute, as on several occasions he requested his federal counterpart, Mr. Regan, to intervene in the B.C. Tel dispute?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the problem in the ICBC dispute closely parallels a difficulty which occurred approximately five years ago. In that particular dispute, with respect to time, the union requested the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner. Such an appointment is very seldom made, unless there is the consent of both parties. In that particular case, the management did not feel it was appropriate. I can advise the House that extensive meetings have occurred and are presently occurring. The last memorandum on my desk, the contents of which am not at liberty to disclose, would indicate that the parties have come a considerable distance within the last 72 hours.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in a somewhat circuitous answer, indicates he has not acted personally in this dispute, as he asked his federal counterpart to do.

I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for ICBC. There is substantial evidence that additional costs are being paid by ICBC because adjusters are not able to check repair costs. Has the corporation in any way double-checked on these repair estimates which are being done without ICBC personnel checking costs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member that the approximately 200 management people who

[ Page 6472 ]

are attempting to provide service to the motoring public are doing the best they can to ensure that claims estimates are realistic. Secondly, if, as he indicates, the member has evidence, would he please provide me with it? We will take the necessary action to correct the matter.

MR. HALL: Would the same minister, responsible for ICBC, advise why the board of ICBC refused to arbitrate the final two items in the dispute so that a settlement could have been achieved some weeks ago?

HON. MR. HEWITT: There is a negotiating team, if you will, of management that meets with the union negotiating team, and those matters are discussed between those two groups. Any issues that are resolved are resolved between those two bodies and not with the board of directors of ICBC.

MR. HALL: Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister compiled in a study, in his capacity as a member of the board of ICBC, or has he information he could give to the House regarding the loss of skilled personnel to the corporation? If so, and if there is such a study, could he tell the House how many skilled people have been lost to the corporation as a result of this dispute to date?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't have that detail with me. I'll be glad to take the question as notice.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AUTOMOBILES

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. On May 27 this year I asked the minister a few questions about automobiles used by the ministry: the number, the insignia on the automobiles and so on. I'm sure the minister remembers, and she will probably remember taking the questions as notice on May 27. My question today is this: has the minister now decided to respond to those questions taken as notice on May 27?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Hon. member, I'm sure you will forgive me; I have a bit of laryngitis. I'm glad you asked that question. I have the answer: there are 25 vehicles in the Ministry of Tourism fleet. There are 23 vehicles in the Ministry of Tourism, with the Tourism colors and markings. There is one vehicle in Victoria which is not painted with the Tourism colors and markings; this vehicle is assigned to the Minister of Tourism. There is a second unmarked vehicle located in Vancouver which is used by the ministry and other senior officials of the ministry on special assignment.

MR. HALL: Can the minister confirm that people who were not employees of her ministry were allowed to make use of those government automobiles?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: To be the best of my knowledge, no one who hasn't been especially assigned the use of the vehicles has ever used them.

MR. HALL: This is my last question to the minister. Can the minister confirm that one of the vehicles has recently been transferred from Vernon to Victoria?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR
OF THE DISABLED GRANTS

MS. BROWN: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister advise the House why the grants programs for the International Year of Disabled Persons, announced by the minister on December 19, 1980, and again on February 25, 1981, has been reduced from the $3 million to now only $2.35 million, as was announced on June 19, 1981?

HON. MR. SMITH: I can bring some figures back to the member, but the $3 million was a total amount that was put into the International Year of Disabled Persons program. All of that will not be distributed by grants. It will be less than that. Some money will be spent for administration and public education. I can give the member the details of that later.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister confirm that he has received requests for $12 million in grants to be handled out of this $3 million program which was to commemorate the International Year of Disabled Persons?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't confirm that. The member may be right. I certainly know that it was a very healthy spate of applications. I can't confirm the exact amount. I will be receiving the recommendations of the committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons very shortly. Again, I will confirm what the total figure of applications was. She may well be right.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister assure the House that all of the colleges and provincial institutions with programs for disabled persons will be able to at least maintain those programs in September 1981?

HON. MR. SMITH: A number of colleges will be putting on different and expanded programs, certainly in the field of the adult handicapped. Some programs may be changed and altered as the boards of the colleges and institutes see fit. I can't give any such guarantee. I don't have the power to do so. It is certainly true that one of the priorities this year that we placed in the funding of the colleges was handicapped education. The councils who allocate the money and the boards who run the colleges have taken that into account.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I wanted to respond to a question I took on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: In question period?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
OF GEORGE LENKO

HON. MR. WOLFE: Regarding George Lenko and his departure from his previous position, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) asked whether there had been any severance pay or any special bonuses paid. On examination, Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that there was no severance pay nor any bonuses of any kind. He did receive vacation pay, which would be the standard practice with any employee who leaves the employ of the government.

[ Page 6473 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, the normal vacation pay which he would have accumulated through his office.

COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Malaspina College administration has announced that the ministry's cutbacks to colleges will result in the elimination of the equivalent of 12 teaching positions. In addition to that, six support staff positions will have to be lopped off next year's budget. Can the minister tell the House whether he has decided to reverse these cuts to Malaspina College?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, he has not decided to do that, Mr. Speaker, and would not decide to do that, but he has met and discussed the budget with the board of Malaspina College. These decisions have been made on the basis of priorities by the college, and where programs have been terminated and changed, it has been done on the basis of priority and demand by the student body. But it's inevitable that some programs and colleges are going to change and that colleges are going to bring in new programs. I would hope that would continue to occur.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, these are not just changes; the cuts in the Malaspina budget total $443,000. Has the minister not given some consideration to replacing this money so that the level of education provided at this community college will not deteriorate irreparably?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there haven't been cuts of $443,000. There is a figure of money that is short of what the college wants to do all its programs of last year plus new programs. That, of course, is described by the gentleman opposite as a cutback. A 19.4 percent increase in college operating costs is not a cutback.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I might observe, a 20 percent increase in the provincial budget has been put into effect. So a 19.4 increase in college operating costs is a decrease. In any case........

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MR. STUPICH: Last year the minister expressed surprise at the low level of literacy shown by post-secondary students in B.C. Now he plans to cut back over $21,000 to funding to English instruction in Nanaimo. That's part of the rationalization or whatever, if you like. That's more than to any other single field of study, with the exception of mathematics. In view of his concern about illiteracy, has the minister decided to intervene at Malaspina and maintain at least the funding for English instruction?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have given this answer one or two times, and I won't be repetitive. The member well knows that the college makes those decisions on the elimination or reduction of a course or section. It has been a priority of the college and institute funding this year to increase support for adult basic education. That priority has been recognized not just in budgets but also in a change to the student aid plan, which for the first time makes student aid available to students in adult basic education, I do not acknowledge that there is any lack of commitment to improving the literacy or level of adults in the post-secondary field.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Powell River mentally disabled programs at Malaspina face a cutback of nearly $20,000. The minister says that this is all decided by the college, but the member for Nanaimo knows that the budget has to be approved by the minister and his officials. Has the minister decided to maintain funding for these programs in this International Year of Disabled Persons?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will look into that particular program. Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to questions taken as notice in question period?

Leave granted.

CONVERSION OF BARCLAY ST. APARTMENTS

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I would like to reply to questions from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), taken as notice by me on June 11, 1981, in connection with an apartment block at 1967 Barclay Street, Vancouver. I was asked to confirm if some tenants in that apartment block have been served eviction notices for the purpose of "converting ostensibly to condominiums." A number of tenants have been served with notices under section 17(1)(e), but the notice does not specify any intention to convert into condominiums.

The member asked next if section 17(1)(e) was "introduced as a result of representations made by the property speculators — the investor community in the city — as indicated by the Hansard speech of the minister's predecessor." First of all, the Hansard speech of my predecessor indicates no such thing. Upon investigation I find that the suggestion for the amendment to section 17(1)(e) came forward internally from the office of the rentalsman itself.

The member further asked if the law firm of Farris and Co. was in any way involved in work relative to the amendment in question or the bill containing it being prepared. The answer is no. The member also asked if the law firm of Clark, Wilson and Co. was in any way involved in work relative to the amendment in question or the bill containing it being prepared. The answer is no.

With respect to the current situation, a number of tenants have appealed the notices served under section 17(1)(e). The office of the rentalsman has scheduled a hearing for July 7 at 6 p.m. so as to be convenient to tenants who work during the day. One of the senior rentalsman officers, a lawyer by training, with considerable experience with landlord-tenant legislation, will be hearing the matter.

Since the matter is in effect under appeal and on the way to a hearing, it would be improper for me to offer detailed comment at this time. However, may I assure the hon. member that promptly after the decision has been announced it will be personally reviewed by me. I should also add that although there have been reports that the Vancouver city

[ Page 6474 ]

council has officially adopted a position or motion in respect of this particular matter, my office has not received particulars of any such official position or motion.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Systems Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS: May I file an answer to a question standing in my name on the order paper, and may I observe that another one which is being sought is on its way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Number 58?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bingo!

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report of the Metro Transit Operating Company for the year 1980-81.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 32.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In rising to introduce second reading of this bill may I say that while I am proud to have the opportunity of doing so, it is nonetheless with some regret that in 1981, with all that we have to enjoy and to offer to each citizen of British Columbia and each person who may come to this country to reside as a citizen or other lawful position; in a democracy of which we so often speak with pride in a country which has on other occasions entered into major armed conflict with other countries for the purpose of suppressing terrorism and the attitudes of persons who would destroy the democratic way of life.... With all these things in our mind it is with some sadness that we would be obliged to introduce legislation to eradicate or to assist in the eradication of conduct by some who fail to recognize the basic tenets upon which this nation was founded.

We have in our midst in this country people who have come from all corners of the world seeking at least two things. They are seeking to share with us the freedom which we wish to enjoy, and seeking as well the opportunity to make their contribution in a free and democratic society. Yet there are those who by their conduct would seek to distinguish, to discriminate, and thereby to interfere with the civil rights of those people who are among us and who will join us in years to come.

I believe, and I am satisfied that all members of this House believe, that every citizen of this province has the right to go about his business, his or her lawful pursuits, free from fear. We have laws today in this nation which provide a measure of protection against conduct which we deem criminal. We find fear of physical harm to persons or to property and fear with respect to our lives protected in our criminal law, yet the fear persists — fear not of physical violence, fear not so much of violence to property, but fear that the dignity of the human spirit is subject to attack.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In his remarks at the beginning of these sittings the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the dignity of the human spirit which was evidenced by Terry Fox. I wondered, as I listened to what the hon. Premier and the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to say with respect to Terry Fox, why it would be that a nation could be so aroused by the single act of courage of one young man in one particular way and yet be unable to provide adequate protection for those who in many other areas find the dignity of the human spirit under attack.

This legislation addresses itself to that problem. It does so by proscribing conduct or communication — which is certainly one aspect of conduct — which has as its purpose the violation of the civil rights of others, and in a particular way, conduct for such purpose and to achieve such purpose as would hold citizens or classes of persons in our community up to hatred or contempt, and the other side of hatred and contempt, the attempt to establish that one is somehow or other superior or inferior to another all because of race, colour, creed, ethnic origin or place of origin. I suggest that conduct which is proscribed by this legislation is an affront to the dignity of the human spirit and humankind and an affront to any citizen of this country who is an advocate of our democratic system. One day we must achieve — but always strive to achieve in the interim — the goal that whatever you may be — whatever colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place or origin — you, your children and your children's children can walk down the streets of this land and participate in all the opportunities that we have without fear.

This bill may not achieve it. As one of the hon. members said following introduction of the bill: "It's a first step." Of course it's only a first step. This problem that we face is not new. The resolution of it we will not solve by this bill alone. The kind of courage and dedication exhibited by Terry Fox will have to be directed in this way by every man, woman and child in our community before we will come close to achieving the goal. But the time to start has surely long passed, and we must begin now even with this first step.

The pursuit of freedoms and civil rights is not new to any of us. It is not new to the courts of this land or courts upon whose decisions we have seen fit to rely in the past. Dealing with another problem in the 1900s, the Privy Council had occasion to consider this question of freedom and what it means. I would like to read briefly from a statement of Lord Lindley on the subject of freedom and the law: "Every person has a right under the law, as between himself and his fellow subjects, to full freedom." He was then speaking of a matter which dealt with trade and labour and the right to engage in occupations. He says: "It follows that every other person is subject to the correlative duty arising therefrom and is prohibited from any obstruction to the fullest exercise of this right which can be made compatible with the exercise of similar rights by others. I am not aware that the rights thus stated have ever been seriously questioned."

At the beginning of this afternoon's sittings we were led in prayer as we are each day. As we listen to the message of the prayers that are offered at the beginning of each day's sitting, irrespective of the denomination or the creed of the person who so leads us, we must surely recognize the importance of those freedoms, which require each of us to observe the correlative duty which arises from the existence of those freedoms.

[ Page 6475 ]

There is the concern among citizens that the law does not provide them with the opportunity of having redress against those who by fear and intimidation, however motivated, would interfere with the freedoms of which I speak. Therefore may I state what was stated by Lord Watson in 1900 on this matter of remedy for the invasion of such a right when he said: "Any invasion of the civil rights of another person is in itself a legal wrong, carrying with it liability to repair its necessary or natural consequences insofar as those are injurious to the person whose right is infringed." It is that which we seek to do with this bill, Mr. Speaker — to provide an opportunity in this province for the civil rights which are interfered with in any of the ways proscribed by this legislation, an opportunity for the righting of that wrong.

I trust that this first step will be seen to be a move directed against those persons whose attitudes and whose conduct resulting from those attitudes is something that this province and its citizens are unwilling to accept. It would be my pleasure if this legislation never had to be used and if those who would so conduct themselves would realize at long last the pain and the suffering that their attempted indignities produce and would be dissuaded from conduct which has such result. But I fear that will not be the case. Therefore this Legislature is being asked today to afford a means of access to our courts, a means of remedy which is currently absent in our law, as part of a conscious program aimed at achieving the objective to which we must all commit ourselves.

As has been said in other circumstances in this House, the passing of legislation and having the words on the paper will not themselves achieve our objective. It will require the wholehearted, sincere commitment of citizens throughout this province understanding the nature of our democracy, understanding the value of the freedoms which are ours to enjoy and understanding that whenever we diminish the freedom of one citizen, the freedom of us all is diminished. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a rare opportunity for us in the Legislature to be sane and calm, having heard those remarks made by the Attorney-General — something of a first, I would say, coming from that particular minister — on behalf of his colleagues. He is describing a condition, as he said, which was not created just yesterday, but which has been with us for a long time. Certainly those of us on this side of the House applaud the effort of the government to recognize a problem finally that I personally, and my colleagues as well, have attempted to bring attention to for at least two years. I think it only appropriate to agree with the Attorney-General when he suggests it is unfortunate that, in 1981, it is necessary to introduce a Civil Rights Protection Act in a free and democratic society that has enjoyed freedoms for so long. We now find it necessary to take aggressive action against those who would undermine that system. I suppose that my parallel comment to that observation by the minister is that though it may have been difficult for him to make the move, it was twice as difficult for those of us who have been trying to get his attention concerning the problem.

Too often those of us not directly affected by adversity and difficulty have to undergo considerable personal experience and demonstrations of events and circumstances that eventually begin to enlighten us. So perhaps this is an occasion to recognize the strength of our democratic system, because clearly this is an example of collective action on the parts of individuals and groups who insisted that the democratic process be put to the test, respecting the security and integrity of our traditional customs of freedom and justice for all. Clearly we were experiencing a void in the justice system, a lack of leadership and direction, and in fact a questionable degree of commitment on the part of those charged with the responsibility of ensuring everyone equality under the law in fact — not just in a customary way that was unenforceable when the chips were down.

In my view, the people of British Columbia are here in spirit, if not in person. on behalf of all members of the Legislature. I think that all of us can give personal testimony to petitions and representations by individuals to us with respect to this menace — the deliberate design to undermine the sensitive nature of a multicultural and multiracial society.

Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that there is much point in reviewing all the things associated with the problem. Most members will recall my early statements in which I tried to bring attention to this issue prior to Christmas. It has taken considerable time to bring the government's attention to the need for law enforcement, the need to demonstrate to freedom-loving and freedom-respecting citizens of this province our commitment to their right to live in peace, dignity and harmony — those things which we have always had, but which suddenly we find have not been protected in the courts through sufficient laws and strategies ensuring that people know how to use them and would have access to them through due process.

These are some of the things that please me about the act, late though it may be in coming. I'm quite pleased and gratified to be part of that process — to know that even where there are partisan politics involved we do come to our senses. This particular issue is one that makes everything else secondary. If we fail in our attempts to maintain the integrity that we have enjoyed for so long, and if we fail to instil a sense of confidence in the minds of those many cultures, races and various minorities in the community, if they fail to have confidence in our system of justice and our democratic process, and if they fail to believe that it is possible for them to achieve an effect upon that system through their demonstrations and efforts, then just about everything we're discussing and dealing with in this Legislature will be for nought.

Human dignity is a personal thing to most people. It means different things to different people. In our society we believe that they should have the right to make that determination for themselves. As long as they can do it within the parameters of our so-called freedoms, then they recognize their responsibility to everyone else, not only to themselves. That's what this bill is attempting to protect, as I understand it. It's an attempt to say that there are lines beyond which this society will not tolerate any force whatsoever. In other words, our society has to recognize what the bottom line is with respect to the fair share that all of us as individuals expect as citizens in this society.

While this is a first step, I hope that it will not be the last. I hope that the Attorney-General, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and other associated ministers will take the necessary actions within their ministries to ensure that the institutionalized racism that has existed in this society since day one will also receive some of those blows that are needed in order to make those ministers more accessible on an equal opportunity basis to all our citizens in this province.

I recognize that when you say "institutionalized racism" you are talking about the very underpinnings and the very

[ Page 6476 ]

nature of this society in a broad, sweeping generalization. I say that with respect and as a matter of observation. I think it is a matter of fact. It's about time we became aware of and began to gain some insights into the structure which we've all adopted for better or for worse. We know the faults. One of the problems, however, in recognizing faults is your own personal, vested interest. It depends on what it costs to see that we become more egalitarian; it's the price tag. Clearly, if we are going to enjoy the coexistence and the dignity that we spoke of, that Terry Fox attempted to promote among Canadian citizens, then we have to recognize the consequences of that human spirit that has been jaded and that no longer has confidence in those principles which we have made as men and women in this society. None of those principles work very well unless they're adopted by the people who will become subject to them.

So I'm saying that this is not just a first step in the field of law enforcement, but also in the field of education, in the economy, in our industrial way of life and every nook and cranny of our culture and our society. We have to recognize that the initiative taken today is truly only a first step.

Perhaps we made a big thing about that "contentious" McAlpine report that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) talked about. Mr. John McAlpine really just put into summary form what has been known by most of us who have been in the field fighting on behalf of groups of individuals who have complained about the injustices which exist because of their race, colour, religion, place of origin, etc. The McAlpine report may well serve as a first important textbook in all schools, as required reading and as perhaps an insight into what we were. It puts quite clearly the perspective from which most of us have known — but perhaps the government needed to see it in black and white — what had become a serious, cancerous, malignant, contagion that seemed to never end and was affecting all of us all the time, every day and in every walk of life. I think there is some philosophic content, and some review of the kinds of attitudes that are needed and the kinds of institutional programs that are needed in the education system, in the marketplace and in the workplace. The McAlpine report, I think, has perhaps been seen as a threat to the government because it was critical of their lack of policies with respect to the things that need to happen.

The Attorney-General has indicated that his colleagues can learn. Although they may have been indifferent, they can learn. Let's hope that we will have citizenship as a required subject that deals with the realities of a multiracial mosaic of all of us, as Canadian citizens. It's about time we began to know what that identity really is. I'm sorry that for so long so many Canadians are still somewhat uncertain as to what it is to be a true Canadian. I think we've paid far too little attention to the need to inform young people and really everyone — parents, institutions and leaders in the community. Every one should be very much aware of the importance of interhuman relations and understanding the need to have as many people as possible on that team in buying that concept of freedom and democracy. It's not good business to have people jilted, confused, disagreeing, angry and hostile because they're not getting a fair share in society.

The most important resource, notwithstanding the importance of tapping our natural resources in the ground, such as coal and forest products, are people. People have been neglected too long. We need to rationalize our statutorial laws to fit with those traditions we've enjoyed for so long. It's just not good enough to count on people's good will indefinitely when matters are tied up with competitive society and the ruthlessness of trying to survive in a culture that is basically materially oriented. We're asking people to have a human spirit, and at the same time we're asking them to take their chances in a very vicious marketplace, and many people get hurt. Some of them are hurt permanently. We have to become more humanized and more sensitized to the human condition. Whatever we may do technologically, industrially or in any field, let's keep in mind there are people out there who matter and who we need on the team.

My colleagues and I support the second reading of this bill. As I say, I want to be positive in the sense that this is a first important step, but I want to caution the government that this is only a first step. We certainly do not expect to forget that we're here working on behalf of the people, and as such those members in the opposition have a duty to point out the faults of the things the government does or doesn't do. In so doing and in so acknowledging I would say we'll be keeping a close watch on how this legislation fares in the courts. We hope that we will be hearing many more announcements on that side of the House with respect to programs that will improve interrelationships among human beings in this province.

MR. BARRETT: I do not intend to speak very long. I think this bill needs speedy passage and certainly will be given that by cooperation from the opposition. This is a rare debate and a rare moment in this House, Mr. Speaker, in that there is unanimity in the thrust of this bill and an agreement with both the Attorney-General and the member for Vancouver Centre that the law itself will not be enough to deal with this problem, but it is an attempt at a legal statement on what we feel about our freedoms and opportunities.

I just want to add a few words in praise to the member for Vancouver Centre, who at times felt somewhat lonely in the process of the long struggle to get this bill to the House. It was a long struggle, and we can all give reasons why it was and wasn't, but that's past now. We're here, we're dealing with a bill and we welcome that. I just want to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for not giving up the struggle and for continuing to meet with people in the community who have been faced with the problem of racism. He has given them his support in a positive, useful, building manner, at the same time interpreting, especially to new Canadians, the importance of having understanding and faith in our British parliamentary system. As a naturalized Canadian the member from Vancouver Centre probably has more appreciation of Canadian citizenship than those of us who were born into that citizenship. The member has done a good job for the people of his constituency and the people of this province. Today all of us are sharing in that job well done along with the Attorney-General. I say to the member for Vancouver Centre, keep it up; it's been well worth the effort and there's more to be done.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In closing this debate I trust that the people of this province will recognize that when we are speaking of matters as fundamental as those which are involved in this bill, it is not necessary for members throughout this entire House to rise in their place and address themselves to this matter. It seems to me that some of the most important things we do are often those which require the least to be said.

[ Page 6477 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 32 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Civil Rights Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LAUK: If some of us are going to be taking these cases, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions. I want him to help me to prepare my first brief.

The question I have for the Attorney-General is this: there is a difficulty in bringing on such actions in terms of the experiences of the court with respect to that which is outlined in section 1. Is it the Attorney-General's intention to make clear — through interventions initially in such civil actions — that what is intended by the Legislature is that there be a liberal and exceptional use of exemplary damages to demonstrate clearly a public policy issue brought through such an individual civil action? In other words, will the force of their argument be that the ordinary rules of exemplary damages are not to be applied here, but the intention is that individuals brought to court through civil action will be made an example of as an extension of the meaning of the word "exemplary"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member could have raised that in section 3, but I might as well answer the question now. The intervention by the Attorney-General is because of the clear public interest there can be in such lawsuits. There may be those who would wish to abuse this legislation — for whatever purpose may best serve their interests — by bringing actions which are frivolous and vexatious. Because of the concern which has been expressed on all sides of this House, we would not wish that to occur. So that's one reason the Attorney-General would wish to intervene.

The member has also questioned whether it is the intention to visit upon people who conduct themselves in any of these prohibited ways exemplary damages in order that an example will be made. That is one of the purposes of the intervention provision.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 32, Civil Rights Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the debate was adjourned by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and I will continue debate briefly by pointing out that debating second reading of this bill is really impossible, because in second reading you are supposed to deal with the principle of the bill. There are two interpretations of that, Mr. Speaker. One is that there is no principle in this bill, none whatsoever; and secondly, the 126 sections that are involved will be debated separately.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's principle.

MR. BARRETT: It is unprincipled. I don't know, Mr. Member.... You would know more than anyone else how unprincipled this is because they'd never do anything like this in Ottawa, and it's the first time that it's happened here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, normally in the omnibus bill we get bus transfers, we get bus tickets and other related subjects that are not matters of state importance. But for the first time in this House we are getting the stealthy erosion of the normal process of up-front legislative responsibility by sneaking parts into this bill that should be separate bills on their own. This is not by accident. This is a government of stealth and sleaziness that has deliberately met in cabinet and used this method to shove into a bill what they don't have the courage to face as separate legislation in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would caution the member that parliamentary debate and language.... I would say that the member has strayed somewhat from that.

MR. BARRETT: Stealth is acceptable. I withdraw sleazy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I will not use the word sleazy because it is not permitted in this chamber. If it were permitted, I'd use it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it's not, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. But it is stealthy and it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the ministers in this House having to face one by one direct accountability of taxpayers' money. This day we're going to pass into second reading a bill that has sections in it to allow the corporations — the spoiled children of this government — to borrow over $1 billion at international interest rates bordering on 18 and 19 percent that will

[ Page 6478 ]

be a burden on the taxpayers of this province for generations to come.

We have evidence that this government is going to take bills and shove them in the drawer and hope that future generations will pay those accounts as they lead us into a quagmire of debt on Crown corporations that normally were under pay-as-you-go. Who was it, Mr. Speaker, who stopped the process of paying for government buildings out of general revenue and put us into debt on mortgages on government buildings? It was that coalition group over there. For the first time in the history of this province we now have mortgages on government buildings. The next thing you know they'll be slapping a mortgage on the legislative building if they're allowed to get away with what they're doing.

MR. LAUK: We'll be owned by Las Vegas pretty soon.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's possible. This year alone B.C. Hydro is in Europe cap in hand looking for $900 million. But that's not dealt with in this bill, so I won't speak about that. British Columbia Building Corporation is going to ask to borrow $400 million more on top of already paying for assets, and then selling them off — like the B.C. ferry that was recently built. The taxpayers paid $30 million for that ferry and it was sold to Royal Trust for $24 million, and we have to pay almost $90 million to buy our own ship back.

MR. LAUK: That's good business.

MR. BARRETT: Good business? This government is driving this province into a massive debt load that has been unequalled in its history. Six years ago the per capita debt in this province was $1,900 per person, with assets that were later thrown away in the BCRIC to balance those debts. That asset situation has changed, and under six short years of Social Credit the per capita debt has risen from $1,900 per person to $3,900 debt for every man, woman and child by the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the one minister who should be facing in this House a separate bill is that minister from the north, who is the one who apologizes for the overwhelming debt loaded on us through B.C. Rail with his massive tunnel plans. He's the only man in cabinet anywhere in the Commonwealth who admits that he believes in tunnel vision. That tunnel vision is going to cost us $500 million to subsidize a coal project. But does he stand up in this chamber and bring in a separate bill? No. He went into the cabinet, used his influence, pounded his colleagues into line, and stealthily said: "Let's just dump this teensy weensy little couple of lines in this teensy little statute."

He's been waving so many things past his desk with accountability that his arm is automatically flopping around in response to it. You're not selling used cars. This is debt that you're dumping on the people of British Columbia, and you're doing it in a stealthy way. B.C. Rail is going to sell $800 million of shares to itself. That's a sneaky way of borrowing money. And then they're allowed to borrow another $400 million on top of it.

In this chamber, in the hallowed memories of the traditional Social Credit pay-as-you-go theory.... The member is amused. Are you waving the money goodbye, Mr. Member? Is that what you're doing?

There is $1.2 billion snuck into this omnibus bill because we're not faced with a separate piece of legislation. It's money borrowed in the international marketplace — Lord knows from where — at 18 percent, and the taxpayers of this province have to pay it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Middle East.

MR. BARRETT: Shall we examine that deal? The Minister of Finance will tell you that was a good deal. We borrowed that money in Canadian money at 9.75 percent, not in American money that now costs $1.18 for every dollar. I'll tell you that if that minister could find some of those petrodollars at the same deal right now, he'd be the first one to sign on the dotted line. Yes, he would.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Secret deals.

MR. BARRETT: Is it secret to you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You wouldn't tell us where it came from.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, was it the government of Kuwait? Were the conditions not known publicly that it was.... They talk about a secret deal. All right, let's deal with the secret deal. It was public and at 9.75 percent in Canadian money. Anything else hidden from the public, Mr. Member? Anything missing? Not a thing. Notice how silence overcomes them, Mr. Speaker. Don't leave the House now, Mr. Member. Don't run out now when you should be facing the heat over a sneaky attempt to avoid responsibility in this House for borrowing money. They run around this province saying that they're running a debt-free operation. You're borrowing money faster than a guy on a losing binge in Las Vegas trying to make up on the last roll for every loss.

People's homes, people's tax structures and municipalities are being threatened by how you're forcing taxes up in this province just to service the debt you're piling on the backs of the people of British Columbia. On B.C. Hydro bills 30 cents of every dollar goes to pay interest alone. Every time you pay your light bill — and you're one of the few who can afford to pay the light bill under this government, Mr. Speaker — 30 cents of every dollar goes to pay off debt from the foolish deals that this government has gotten into.

Debt, debt, debt is the name of this bill; borrow, borrow, borrow. Borrowing your way into the future is no way to build British Columbia. Mortgaging the future of British Columbians is no way to prosperity. Only backward businessmen would think of squandering the equity we have in this province through massive international borrowings and then bringing it in in this bill.

Tucked away in the 126 sections are little things that are tidied up and cleaned up and have to be paid attention to in an omnibus bill. But for the first time in the history of this province major borrowing bills are being slipped into an omnibus bill. Do you know what they thought? They thought: "Oh, well. It's the end of the session. The opposition will just look at it and let it go by. The people of British Columbia won't pay any notice." I've got news for you in the government. People in this province are getting concerned about the borrowing that's going on with the lack of accountability by separate bills dealing with that borrowing.

Why has the government decided not to make the minister face up to this House and deal in detail, bill by bill, with the borrowings? In the case of the Minister of Industry and

[ Page 6479 ]

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) I can understand it. They've told him to stay off television because he's inclined to go off the deep end. We weren't sure what they meant by going off the deep end, Mr. Speaker, but now we know — $1.2 billion worth off the deep end.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not his money.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what does he care? "What's a billion?" says the minister.

Taxpayers' money is being borrowed at an unprecedented rate. The debt of this province will be up over $10 billion by the end of this year. And who was responsible for doubling this debt in six short years? That government over there. That once-proud party that brought in the system of pay-as-you-go has now reversed the policy. It's debt every day under Social Credit. Debt every way. Things are getting debtier every way in British Columbia.

Who initiated this policy? Is it that group of Liberals over there who have understood that the Liberal Party in Canada has raced this nation into debt at a gallop — and they brought their goofy Liberal finance policies to this government? Is it the Liberal group within the government which endorsed this plan to bury this big-spending, debt-borrowing bill in this omnibus method? Wasn't the Socred minister overwhelmed by the influence of the sophisticated urban Liberals who out manoeuvred him in cabinet?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: City-slicker debt, indeed, Mr. Chairman. What do those Liberals care? They haven't changed one iota since they walked across the floor. They were a debt party when they were in opposition, and now they're a debt party in government, influencing what little is left of the traditions of Social Credit pay-as-you-go — a mortgage on every government building, a mortgage on every government ship. Pretty soon this building will be under mortgage too. They'd rent this building out if they thought they could get away with it.

MR. LAUK: They'd be foreclosed by the Arabs.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it could be. We could rent out this hall for community meetings, or for a casino, the way things are going.

MR. MACDONALD: Or a disco palace.

MR. BARRETT: No, this could never become a disco palace. But I tell you, as much as we jest, and as much as we examine what's going on, it is tragic that our debt position has doubled in six short years under Social Credit. There is an increasing lack of accountability as to how this debt is being accumulated on the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia: $1,900 per capita debt in 1975, $3,900 per capita debt in 1981. Going, going, gone.

The government of the day has its will. The government of the day can make the moves that it wants. But it will be evaluated on the way they make their moves and the moves themselves. This is sneaky, Mr. Speaker. During committee we intend to deal item by item with it, and we expect accountability at that time. So we say clearly that we'll go along with second reading, but in committee stage every one of these sections will be scrutinized in detail.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to the form of the bill which is before us. Not only are the sections dealing with each particular statute clearly headed up by the statute which is to be amended, but we have gone to the trouble of providing extensive explanatory notes so that any member of this House who has any interest in any of the matters which are contained in this omnibus bill has the opportunity of understanding what is taking place and thereby taking part in the debate. The bill is one which is not unique to this session. It has been traditional in this Legislature for many years. There will be an opportunity to deal with it as extensively as members wish, without the usual time constraints on the length of their speeches when they get into committee. Therefore we are extending to you a greater opportunity than ever before to debate any parts of the bill which are of concern, rather than fixing you with the limit under our standing orders of one time only. We're happy to hear what the member for Coquitiam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) may have to say on any of these matters which interest him as many times as he wishes to speak.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: I just invite the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to comment on this section briefly. As I read it, the effect of this will be that $26.1 million that was borrowed from trust funds at 9¼ percent will now be paid back to those trust funds out of cash on hand, and those trust funds will then be invested at something like 17 percent or 18 percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Nanaimo observes that $26.1 million of debt which was incurred between 1972 and 1975 inclusive is being repaid on an annual basis. This is the third of ten instalments to repay that. The interest rate at which the money will be invested is, of course, a matter that none of us in this chamber or this committee can tell at this point in time.

MR. STUPICH: I guess the minister missed the first part of my question, and that is that these funds were borrowed from trust accounts, and these trust accounts are receiving only 9¼ percent on this total amount, including the $26.1 million being repaid with this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we canvassed that in second reading, and I believe at that time I concurred with the observation of the member for Nanaimo in virtually every aspect of the point he made.

MR. STUPICH: Just one more point. In response to my first question the minister said that the debt was incurred

[ Page 6480 ]

between 1972 and 1975. Will he agree that the debt was incurred on March 31, 1976?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that point has been very thoroughly canvassed too. The debt gathered over the period of the former administration and was dealt with at the conclusion of the fiscal year 1975-76.

MR. STUPICH: I think the minister agreed with me that the debt was actually incurred on March 31, 1976. I think that's what he said. For example, the $175 million that was paid to ICBC on March 31, 1976, made up something like 75 percent of that $261 million. So I think the minister will agree that the debt was not actually incurred between 1972 and 1975 but on March 31, 1976, when some $250 million was paid out to various Crown corporations, the largest payment being to ICBC.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Aye.

MR. STUPICH: Let the record show that the Minister of Finance did say, "aye." I accept that as his answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let the record show that I was calling for passage of the section, Mr. Chairman. I was not speaking from my seat with respect to what the member for Nanaimo said.

MR. STUPICH: Nor were you arguing. You're embarrassed about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, not in the least.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. We're dealing with one very small section of a bill, and you'll notice that it's a bill. It happens to be a political bill, and this is a political section. We debate that by itself, and yet on the other hand we've got a massive borrowing by this government buried in two statute law amendment acts. One is B. C — Hydro's $900 million borrowing, and now we've got BCR and the Buildings Corporation, which used to be Public Works. This afternoon we have seen political hypocrisy beautifully exampled for us right before this committee.

MR. HALL: In living colour.

MR. COCKE: Yes, as the member for Surrey says, in living colour. I suggest to you that this outrageous way of doing business should not be condoned by anyone in this province.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just like to remind the Minister of Finance that as years go by, and as this government sells off the land bank that was acquired under the previous government and brings millions of dollars into revenues, that also exposes the lie of this particular piece of legislation.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 21

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. REE: I noted that the member for Atlin's (Mr. Passarell's) name was called, and he's not present in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction is noted.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 14, Provincial Debt Repayment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: On Friday last, a report was moved, read and received from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. I'm referring to report No. 6. I refer the Speaker of the House to standing order 115 of our Standing Orders, which states: "When the committee on any private bill reports to the House that the preamble of such bill has not been proved to its satisfaction, or otherwise reports unfavourably on the bill, the committee must also state the grounds upon which it arrived at such a decision. No bill so reported upon shall be placed on Orders of the Day...." The committee "must" state the grounds upon which the bill is rejected.

Report No. 6 states, Mr. Speaker: "Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: the preamble of Bill PR403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has not been proved, as the assertions in the petition are not substantiated." Patently, on its face that cannot be, Mr. Speaker. The statement "the assertions are not substantiated" means inclusively that all the assertions aren't substantiated. Surely the committee has a responsibility under standing order 115 to provide the grounds. This is not providing the grounds. This is a cop-out. This is a piece of parliamentary language. The full meaning of standing order 115 is that the grounds be stated. People

[ Page 6481 ]

have brought a private bill for passage. If the committee turns it down, the members of this House are entitled to hear from that committee why.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the member has been made. The Chair will undertake to review the matter without prejudice to the member, but I must advise as well that we cannot enter into debate at this particular time.

MR. LAUK: He didn't even have the courage to move adoption of that report so that it could be debated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 140: minister's office, $147,796.

MR. HALL: As we rose for the weekend on Friday, I indicated to the minister my intentions to discuss the current situation at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. In so doing, I am as concerned and as conscious as the minister is over the fact that there is an industrial dispute there. I have no intentions of involving, by any stretch of the imagination, this House, this chamber or this committee in any of the negotiations that may be going on this afternoon, tomorrow or maybe the next day. I have no intention of getting involved in the merits of any of the positions that have been taken by either side in the dispute.

To avoid discussion of the dispute and of this important industrial sector of our community when the minister's estimates are up would be, in my view, an abandonment of our responsibilities. The minister must seek, of course, to answer the questions as he sees fit. I'm sure he will take the necessary caution that I'm going to take in dealing with a sensitive situation, as I had to do on occasions when I was sitting on that side of the House. Nevertheless, this dispute has been going on for some 150 days, as I mentioned during question period today at 2 o'clock.

What bothers me in this dispute that's gone on is that I've seen little or no pressure brought onto the parties by the Ministry of Labour or by the Minister of Labour. There's been little or no pressure put onto the Crown corporation of this province and its employees to get to the bargaining table, stay at the bargaining table and stay in a hotel or some accommodation to work towards a settlement. At this point in time in this chamber, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I don't particularly care about the details of the settlement. That's not what I'm here about. I'm talking about getting towards that settlement. A settlement is going to be reached. I want to know why we haven't got to that settlement earlier than today, tomorrow or the day after. Because as sure as shooting, we're going to get to a settlement.

The point I want to make is that the minister was quick some months ago in sending telegrams to his federal counterpart, Gerald Regan, to get involved in the dispute at B.C. Tel. "Get involved," he said to Gerry, "knock heads. Get them in a hotel room; get them around a table. Come to British Columbia from the east. Come west. Get involved." It's 150 days, and by his own admission at 2:15 today, the minister has not become personally involved. The pressure has not been on those parties. Mr. Albertim has been involved and Mr. Gilmour is involved. But the real clout and pressure has not been, in my view.... I'm speaking for myself and myself only. I'm not speaking for the corporation or the trade union. I'm talking about my perception as the second member for Surrey. There has not been pressure involved and brought to bear on the parties. There's not been phone calls or real pressure put on these two sides by that ministry or that minister — the kind of pressure that this minister knows can be put onto the sides in industrial disputes.

Mr. Chairman, you'll be interested to know that on May 21 or thereabouts, there was a suggestion put forward by the corporation that they could negotiate and then some binding arbitration could be used. There was a response by the trade union involved that said that after some five to seven days of intense bargaining, all the outstanding issues could go to binding arbitration. It was unusual that a trade union voluntarily agreed to go to binding arbitration. That was around May 26 or 27. I read in the media about the rejection of those proposals; they're not carried forward by the industrial inquiry commission or by Mr. Gilmore; the corporation makes its statements to its employees through the media. They replied through the media on the 27th. A Crown corporation of this province replies to its employees, who offer themselves up for binding arbitration, through the media. Colleagues of this minister who sit only one chair away from him — that's next door to him — who are responsible to this House for the operation of ICBC, reject those proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very conscious of the fact that now there is a drawing together of positions. The good offices of the ministry staff are being used. But it has taken 150 days, when I maintain that it should have taken less than that. Clout and pressure, all the techniques the minister knows about, should have been used. On May 21 and 27 both sides said that they were prepared to use binding arbitration. One can argue that they didn't say the same thing at the same time and in the same place, but that's what the skills of negotiation are, the skills of corridor diplomacy, the skills of pressure at 11 o'clock at night or at 2 o'clock in the morning, the skills of 24 hours of continuous negotiations. Those are the skills the minister knows.

Mr. Chairman, I'm also concerned about what's happening to the corporation. This Legislative Assembly is steward of millions of dollars of investment in that corporation. What's happening to the conduct of the business? I tried to get the answer from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) today to my questions regarding the conduct of the corporation. It would be out of order in this debate, but I'm trying to find out what's happening to the corporation and to the personnel. Are the personnel going elsewhere? Are we losing the electronic data processors? What is happening? I am told, for instance, that as long ago as March 28 the trade union involved in this dispute made an offer to the general insurance sector of the corporation that they would continue to work, provided some accommodation could be made that would enable them to keep that general insurance sector going. Those kinds of offers have been made.

I don't want detailed responses from the minister. All I'm saying is that there will be opportunities in a number of instances down the road for skilled intervention. The pressure that only the minister or an industrial inquiry commissioner could have brought in terms of getting the sides to-

[ Page 6482 ]

gether.... Last year when the minister was brand new and had a rather easy ride of it I said that he wouldn't have such an easy ride of it during estimates this year. Here is the very example I'm trying to bring to the minister's attention: that just because it happens to be a dispute, there is no reason for us not to discuss it.

In my view, the ministry was not used correctly; the minister did not use his own offices correctly. I'll repeat it now for the last time: if he was correct, if he was confident, if he really meant what he said about the federal Minister of Labour, then I say to him that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He should have involved himself in this 150-day dispute a long time ago. We all know that sometime in the next few days there will be the beginnings of a settlement of this dispute, and it makes one realize that if he had done himself what he wanted his federal counterpart to do, probably weeks ago we could have reached that happy day that is coming along this week or next week.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's only fair to say that the whole trade union movement looks upon this dispute as characterized by a hands-off situation on the part of that cabinet in contradiction to some of the other disputes. That disturbs me, because I think that the Labour Code, which is an admirable one, should be used even-handedly. In fact, one could argue that because a Crown corporation is involved in this dispute there was an admirable opportunity for the Labour Code to have worked beautifully, and yet I see no evidence that it has.

Those are the comments I wanted to make about the dispute, comments that I forewarned the minister about on Friday. I hope I have met his worries and concerns by not getting involved in the dollars and cents, hours of work and the return-to-work negotiations which are currently going on, because I've no wish to do that. I'm talking about the anatomy of the dispute, if you like, over the last 150 days.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My only comment is that it seems to me that the dispute has been going on for a period of three months. I don't know quite where he gets 150 days. It makes me think of many years ago when he had some difficulty in agreeing on the time of day.

First of all, in the B.C. Tel dispute the contract expired on December 31, 1979. The member well knows that that dispute carried on for a period of 14 or 15 months. With all due respect, I would point out that distinction with some emphasis.

Secondly, it's been the policy and the practice of the government and the ministry that those people who are responsible for making their own agreement be allowed to do so. I mentioned in the House last Thursday that parties should not be under the delusion that what they cannot get from each other they can make overtures for to government in the first instance.

I'm not prepared to go into detail on the ICBC case. If I'm to be the clay pigeon with respect to the comments from the member opposite, so be it — that's the task at hand. I've no intention of negotiating that particular dispute in this House. The matter is before the mediator, and when I answered a question during question period today I advised the member that there are intensive negotiations being conducted. They may not be going on at this very moment, but they certainly did over the last 72 hours, and I don't think it's proper for me to mention to the House the degree and extent to which those deliberations are being carried on.

The member raised the Labour Code and said that it would work beautifully. I only wish that were the case. Remember that the Code contains nothing but a number of tools to assist the parties to resolve their dispute.

I would also respectfully point out to the member the history of ICBC going back to 1975. Perhaps I could acquaint the member.... I won't do it, but I suggest he make reference to the clippings from 1975, with which he was so intimately involved. Again, I would ask the member to look at 1977, and I would suggest that if, in fact, the employees of ICBC support what we have come to know and respect as collective bargaining in the traditional sense, they and their employers should follow suit.

With respect to the item under arbitration, if the member were to look again, I think he would find it was abundantly clear that neither side could agree on those matters which would be referred to arbitration.

I appreciate the concerns which the member has — we in government have them as well — with respect to those employees who may not be accounted for now and those who who have had considerable training with the corporation. But, of course, that happens in every dispute, whether it's in the private sector or the public sector. My wish is that perhaps management and the union in the ICBC could make their own agreement. I think they ought to be given the opportunity to do so. If the member has any suggestions with respect to the appropriate provisions of the Labour Code which would work so beautifully and which do not undermine the process of free collective bargaining, I would appreciate receiving a memorandum from him.

I repeat, I am quite prepared to be the clay pigeon in the House and outside, but I think that is my function in order to preserve the integrity of the process.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belabour this point with the minister. He disappoints me greatly. If he thought that we wanted to make him a clay pigeon, does he not think that I would have been up here at 2 o'clock every afternoon over the last 35 days if I had wanted to? I could have been up here at 2:15 every afternoon. I'm in this House for a reason. I've been a member of this House for a lot of years, and if I had wanted to I could have made your life an absolute damn misery about the ICBC strike. For you to come here with that mewling, puerile sort of stuff about making you a clay pigeon is a bit pathetic; that's all I can say. Nobody is trying to make you a clay pigeon about anything.

If I had wanted to talk about the industrial climate in this province, I could have taken is strike by strike for all the time you've been Labour minister, but I've not chosen to do that. Neither has anybody on this side. We have never taken advantage of an industrial dispute to give any minister of any government a bad time, nor will we. We didn't expect people to do it when we were over there either.

When I opened up the questioning I went to some lengths to say I wasn't getting involved in a dispute from a technical point of view. What I did say, however, was that I first of all took your own words vis-à-vis Gerald Regan. That was the first thing I did. The second thing I pointed out was what happened in the past regarding the offers made by both sides about arbitration.

Having got that off my chest, I'll now refer to a number of the answers that you gave me. The concern we have on this side is simply that the time to start to bring parties together is a very tricky time. The minister knows that as well as I do.

[ Page 6483 ]

You can move too quickly and you can move too late. It is this member's opinion that this particular dispute has gone on longer than it needed to have done. That is the only criticism that I have voiced in this chamber to this minister. I stick by that criticism. I stick by it because I've tried to indicate to the minister that he has more clout than he knows he has. It is perhaps the tragedy of this minister and of that government that he doesn't realize just exactly how much pressure and goodwill and how much people really do want to get together.... All they're short of is a bit of a nudge in the right direction, a bit of pressure, or a bit of a reason to say to their respective sides: "Look, I've got to get in that room. The whole of the province is waiting for me to get in that room." That is what I was trying to indicate to the minister.

Perhaps the sadness of this afternoon's debate at 4:15 is that it is not understood.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly sorry that the minister has taken the attitude he has to my colleague's remarks. I'm sure that the minister is aware, as are all of us as members of this Legislature, of the kind of problems that have occurred to the average citizen as a result of the long delays apparent in this outstanding labour dispute. It is certainly true that the minister has certain powers and responsibilities that he could utilize. I'm always concerned when I hear that there are difficulties in getting both sides to agree to compulsory arbitration on outstanding items. I certainly hope that the point has now been reached where they will agree to go to compulsory arbitration on those outstanding items.

I rose to deal with another matter entirely. The remarks I want to make this afternoon have their beginnings very locally in the Crofton pulpmill. We have had an experience there with a mercury spill that has caused a lot of concern to the people who work there and to the people who live in the valley as to just how many safeguards are being taken in our industrial centres relative to the use of chemicals. That particular instrument shop at the Crofton pulpmill has been operating for something like 24 years. In that mill there are 23 instrument shop technicians who use mercury. The history there is that there has been little if any concern relative to the use of that mercury. Eventually there was a major spill — an obvious leak — of nine pounds of mercury seeping from equipment stored on the mezzanine floor above the workshop that brought the thing to a head. The concerns are over what appears to be a very lackadaisical attitude by the mill operators and, as a result, by the people who work in that mill. Certainly the Workers' Compensation Board lays down regulations for mercury under their hazardous chemical guidelines, which call for ventilation, storing in separate rooms, secure containers and a separate eating area away from the mercury. Yet all those things were going on for some 24 years and nothing happened to stop those hazardous practices from being continued until there was a major spill. The WCB is now monitoring the situation, but where were they during the last 24 years? How can a situation go on that long? We're supposed to have labour legislation. We're supposed to have safety legislation in this province to protect workers from these kinds of hazards. It certainly wasn't applied in that area.

I don't very often hold up B.C. Hydro as an example, but it just happens that B.C. Hydro has an installation very close to Crofton in the VI Terminal. That particular terminal is one of 12 power stations in the world that use mercury converting current — AC to DC. Precautions there have been very, very good; they have been above the standards set by even WCB. One of the things that happened there is that their readings are well below the standards set by WCB. Inspections are more frequent than even the requirements by WCB. They have done a job in assuring that the workers are protected. I'm sure they have been prodded a bit perhaps by the union and the workers there in B.C. Hydro. but they have done a good job. Yet at Crofton, where mercury is used, we have a situation that has some scary connotations. How much harm has actually been done to those instrument technicians, who have worked maybe not the whole 24 years but certainly some of them have been there for long periods of time? Has irreparable harm been done to them?

Of course that particular incident leads into my concern generally relative to the use of chemicals. I believe my colleague from Victoria dealt earlier with the studies undertaken in the United States by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which dealt with the high incidence of Hodgkins disease in pulpmill workers and mill workers. According to a study done by Samuel Milham Jr. at Johns Hopkins. the incidence in paper mill workers is something like 12 compared to 3 in the control group. The fatalities are much higher. It's been found that pulp and paper workers in the mills…that cancer of the small intestine and cancer of the lymphatic and haernopoietic tissues show excess deaths — also Hodgkins disease. What are we doing about it? Are we really making any moves to try to ensure that the people who work in those pulp mills are protected, or are we content to make a few regulations and hope that they'll be adhered to?

I've spoken about PCP, which is the material used as a preservative in lumber. I had a chap in my office in Duncan on Friday who had a case before WCB because of a skin rash resulting from, as far as he and is doctor are concerned, the chemical. There is a real problem with Workers' Compensation as to whether or not they are going to accept this. It is of grave concern. We are using more and more chemicals in our industrial centres. Every year there are new chemicals that come into use and we allow that without really considering whether or not they have a harmful effect. We make some regulations....

When I worked at B.C. Hydro, I remember we used to buy gallons and gallons of cleaner — it was a hydrocarbon — and there were no restrictions put on it. I guess somewhere there may have been something in the small print on the containers, but the people who did the cleaning — both of electrical equipment and in the janitorial work — used gallons of that stuff. They used it very indiscreetly, without any precaution as to how. Yet in Hydro's own safety manual they had pages of documentation outlining the hazards and problems — particularly the problems with sclerosis of the liver — that could result from using those very chemicals that we were ordering by the gallon. I've given one example of a place where I think Hydro has done a good job: on the mercury, and the clean room at the VI Terminal; but they're not completely clean in other cases. That business of using hydrocarbons in cleaners was certainly one. Their indiscriminate use of 2,4,5-T in spraying was also a concern.

Of course all this relates to the Workers' Compensation Board, and ties right in to the tremendous files that I'm sure all of us have of WCB cases. I don't intend to repeat; my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) has dealt with a great many of the problems with the WCB. I'm sure that every MLA has a heavy workload based on claims and problems

[ Page 6484 ]

that workers are experiencing with the Workers' Compensation Board.

During the last few years it seems that the interpretation of the legislation has somehow become much tighter. The intent of the legislation certainly is to support a worker who is injured in the course of his duties. Yet we find that workers are having to go to some expense — many of them have to hire lawyers to take their cases to Workers' Compensation. We have seen unanimous decisions by the board of review — that's supposed to be the appeal body that a worker can go to — overruled by the commission. That commission is the body whose appointees made the original decision that is being appealed. What kind of an appeal is that? If you have the right to appeal, only to have that appeal overthrown by the body that made the original decision, it's not much of a right of appeal. It is something that hasn't happened previously; it has been happening in the last few years.

The pensions. Now I know there is a very complicated formula: you get a certain percent disability and you relate it to your possible earnings as a result of your disability, and you tie in a cost-of-living factor, and you come up with a figure. Well, I don't know about that formula, but I know about the result. It means that people who would like to work cannot live on that pension, because it's only 10 percent disability. I had another case in my Duncan office where a logger had an injured leg — 10 percent disability, I think it was. He had $131 pension. He was supposedly unable to work as a logger any more, and that certainly was proven, because when he couldn't get any other work he went out and tried to work as a logger, and had his other leg damaged. He was off work with that.

If a person is injured, and if the WCB decides on a certain pension, then I believe the WCB has some responsibility to ensure that that individual is able to earn the difference from the paper figure. Simply to say, "That's your pension, $131; you should be able to work as a benchman or something," or whatever they come up with.... If there are no benchman jobs or anything equivalent to that, then surely Workers' Compensation has a broader scope of reference and responsibility than that. That's what happening, Mr. Chairman; that's my concern and the concern of those on this side of the House. The worker is getting a raw deal from the Workers' Compensation Board, and every year it seems to get rawer and rawer. I believe that minister has some responsibility to ensure that the Workers' Compensation Board is put back on the track so that people get a fair deal when they're injured on the job.

MS. SANFORD: I had sort of hoped that the minister might get up first thing today in order to answer a number of questions that were posed to him by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) last week. I hesitated just now, hoping that he would get up and answer some of the questions raised by her as well as by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who just took her seat.

I have a few issues I would like to raise with the minister at this point. I won't raise too many of them initially, hoping I can get some answers from the minister and then carry on with others.

I must express my disappointment to the minister with respect to the regulations brought down in relation to farm labourers. Not too long ago the minister brought in regulations which set out a given schedule for payment to farmworkers who are working on a piece-rate basis. Unfortunately, despite my pleading last year, no provision has been made for an assured minimum wage. I'm assuming that when, for instance, raspberries are plentiful and fairly easy to pick, people who work at those very difficult jobs can earn at least the minimum wage. But when the berries become scarce it's going to be difficult for workers to ensure that they are covered by that minimum wage. When the minister initially brought in his employment standards legislation, he indicated that farmworkers would be covered by the minimum wage. Well, they are not, because there are cases.... And I assume it happens fairly frequently that these farmworkers find that they are being paid less than the minimum wage. In addition to the piecework rate, quite often these farmworkers are asked to do additional cleanup jobs and tasks which are not covered by the piece-rate work. So while they're picking berries they may be covered, but if they're asked to do other jobs, there's no provision whatsoever that they will be paid for that time.

The other major problem I see with the system that has been drawn up by the minister is that so many of the farmers do not have scales. If you're being paid 15.5 cents a pound to pick raspberries and there are no scales, what guarantee is there that you will in fact be paid at least what is called for in the regulations that have been passed under the employment standards legislation? Some of the scales that are there are so old that they're completely unreliable, and the farmworker who is out in the field has no alternative but to accept the weight shown on the scale, or in some cases to just guess because there are no scales provided. I'm wondering whether the minister will ensure that scales are provided for these workers if he's not going to ensure the basic minimum wage for them, and whether he will also ensure that the scales are checked periodically so that they are accurate.

Secondly, I would like to know what steps the minister is taking concerning accommodation for farmworkers. We've had severe problems in the Fraser Valley, as well as up in the Okanagan, related to farm labourers — particularly of a transient nature — and the accommodation that they are required to put up with. It's very substandard accommodation. Is the minister doing anything to improve the accommodation for farmworkers to ensure that there is some basic minimum standard set as far as sanitary facilities and everything else is concerned?

The other thing is that in spite of the minister's promise we still have no regulations that relate to the farm labour contractors who are supposed to be licensed and bonded under that employment standards legislation. We kept being promised earlier that once we got towards the farming season we would ensure that all of these regulations came in. There were a number of regulations that came in, but nothing that relates to farm labour contractors as far as the licensing and bonding is concerned. Even though you have legislation that now states what some of these farmworkers must earn, there is nothing to protect them from the farm labour contractor. We know the kind of problems that some of those farm labour contractors presented to the farmworkers, taking as much as 40 percent of their earnings in return for a job and transportation to and from the job. There has been nothing yet, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to comment on some of the issues I have raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, there were a number of questions asked by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), and I think I'll make reference to those first.

[ Page 6485 ]

As far as the boards of review are concerned, if you looked at the annual report, you would find that there were 129 — you've heard of section 90(3) — and 26 were not implemented. The question you ask yourself is why they were not implemented. The WCB, like the Labour Relations Board or courts, operates on precedent. If a decision is not supportable in law, then, of course, the boards of review may have been or were in error, and a higher tribunal may so find. If you want to draw a parallel, I think it would be very easy to appeal and then go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I might also say, in drawing the parallel — and it's very easy to draw, Madam Member — that 129 board of review decisions were referred for reconsideration and 91 were implemented. You saw that in the annual report. I'm sure you've read it. Three were partially implemented, 26 were directed not to be implemented and 9 were still outstanding.

I think that I will have to take the question of mercury as notice, consult with the appropriate officers of the WCB and provide a report. I'm advised by the board that it has funded two health studies on pulpmills: one at Powell River, which is completed and has been available to the public for several months, and one at Woodfibre, which is expected to have its report released in the fall of this year. In addition, I think the member would probably be interested in knowing that the board committed $365,300 annually for five years of research into industrial disease and for training of occupational health physicians. I think you'll find reference to that in the annual report of the WCB for the year ending December 31, 1980.

I would refer the member as well to page 91 of the annual report. The heading is entitled "Laboratory Analysis Report." If you look down, you'll see the number of substances identified as inorganic, the number of requests which were made for analysis and the number of decisions which were given. You'll note also that both the number of analyses required and the number of determinations given for mercury are relatively small when you compare them to something like copper fluoride or particulate. In other words, I think the board is obviously very much aware of the concern the member has raised. Also there was a biological surveillance program conducted in 1980. As far as mercury is concerned, you'll see on page 95 of the annual report that there are eight companies and 280 workers were surveyed. Of course, it would probably be most helpful — and I suspect the practice is followed to some degree — if there is a concern in a working environment, that that concern were always brought to the attention of those responsible.

On a number of the questions raised by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), it is my understanding, after reading the regulations, that when somebody working on a farm is assigned another task, the minimum wage then comes into play, and they're not on piecework. With respect to whether or not the crops are heavy or light, I'm going to have to have another look at that item.

Accommodation. As you know, the Ministry of Labour sponsored an interim ministerial committee with the Ministries of Health, Municipal Affairs and.... I've forgotten the other one. There was a fair amount of work done on that to set out guidelines for accommodation. I might tell the member that, probably within the last three months, I visited two farms in the valley, and one of the farms I visited was the one where the young baby lost her life. I was particularly interested to see what in fact had come to pass at that farm since that unfortunate event. It was rather interesting to note that we found what I refer to as Robertson buildings. They're metal-clad. There was a new building up, and all the rooms were properly dry-walled; there was lots of copper pipe and running water; there were eating areas, cooking areas and showering areas. So there is a significant difference as a result of some of the emphasis which was placed upon the farmer involved. They are camp conditions, and I don't think we should fool ourselves about that, but they have been considerably improved. I also went to an older farm where there are berry pickers' quarters. I am advised that they are there anywhere from four to six weeks. The conveniences are there. They are not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, but they are acceptable. They knew what I was looking for.

I will mention to the member that there has been a committee struck. Some guidelines have been prepared. They are in draft form now, and I can't advise you as to exactly where they stand. I don't think they've been implemented yet; but copies have certainly circulated among those who are responsible for accommodation so that they have some idea of what their goals and objectives should be.

As far as farm-labour contractors are concerned, the legislation provides for bonding and licensing. The discretion is placed on the director of labour standards. When somebody comes in, he'll find out just how many people there will be and the licence will be given for that number of farm labourers. What we are primarily looking for in something like this is protection — to ensure that they are paid. So the bonding requirements are going to be commensurate with the number of people they are licensed to contract out. Then you can anticipate or project what wages will be earned and set the bonding accordingly. Before someone is issued a licence, they're going to have to establish that their carrier is properly insured for the protection of those involved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

There were a number of questions asked last Friday. The members made reference to them again today. I thought I would check up over the weekend and get some notes that might be of assistance. One question was raised with respect to technological change. We know that this is going to receive increased attention during the 1980s. Several months ago, the research branch of the Ministry of Labour. at our direction, undertook an inquiry into technological changes in major industrial sectors. The first report covers the plywood and sawmill industries, and I expect the report reasonably shortly. It is going to focus on manpower as well as collective bargaining implications. When that is completed, we can then form some conclusions with respect to the adequacy of technological change, provisions in the Code and collective agreements, That's the general question of technological change. There were a few other questions: I can't really answer as far as secretaries are concerned.

There was another question with respect to health hazards to children whose parents have been exposed to radiation or toxic substances. The occupational environment branch of our ministry has been promoting a personal hygiene program in this area where exposure occurs. An example is the smelter at Trail, where the branch ordered the clean-up of a situation where workers who are exposed to lead and other toxic materials were bringing this material home in their clothing. In this case the program included ensuring that the employer and employees were aware of the problem. A laundry service

[ Page 6486 ]

was put in at the mill, there was a renovation of locker and shower facilities with the imposition of a compulsory requirement for showering and there was an improvement of the air-filter system at the lunch rooms. Apparently it's working well; the costs associated were naturally borne by the employer. I'm also advised that the occupational environment branch conducted an inquiry at the Afton smelter near Kamloops into the personal hygiene work clothing program similar to that in Trail; it was successfully implemented and apparently it has spread from the mill-site to cover the mine workers in the same location. These programs to prevent workers from taking home toxic materials in their clothing to other persons have been made through the Workers' Compensation Board.

MS. SANFORD: Are you reading news releases?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No,, I'm not, Madam Member, but the question was asked and I thought that perhaps we would get the appropriate answer. If you're not interested, I can always sit down.

One particular program is in place in a number of lead acid storage locations in the province.

One of the areas raised by the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is something that perhaps more should be done on by the branch as well as the Workers' Compensation Board, and that involves exposure of an unborn child. I think the short and sweet of it is that I'm not so sure that much has been done, and perhaps the member who raised that question raised a good one and we should have an inquiry and look into it in more detail. There is some work which has been done on it.

There was another question involving complaints on sexual harassment. I'm not sure whether it was the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) or the member for Burnaby-Edmonds who asked it. Anyway, the report says: "Prior to 1980 complaints of sexual harassment were not distinguished from other sex-discrimination complaints in the records of the Human Rights Branch. However, in 1980" — if you're particularly interested, and I believe you asked this question — "there were eleven harassment cases settled." Four were unsubstantiated; four were not pursued; two were withdrawn and one was referred to me to appoint a board. As I recall, a board was appointed on that particular item. That's a total of 36. In 1981, six were settled; three were settled, they were unsubstantiated; four were withdrawn, and apparently there are nineteen now open to some form of investigation. Also, as you are probably aware, there has been a brochure prepared on human rights and sexual harassment. I'm sure the member has seen it.

One other question was raised with regard to the women's office mandate which we have in the ministry. The objective of this particular office, which is under the jurisdiction of Virginia Greene, and the manager is Jule Morrow, is to improve working conditions for women and expand women's employment opportunities by broadening their participation across a wider range of occupations. Since that time, through some advertising, publicity, preparation of informational brochures, kits and articles, the women's office looks to heightening the sensitivity of individuals and groups to women's employment issues.

There are a number of items on there which I think are important. I'm not so sure it's really necessary to raise them all. I suspect the member knows very well what in fact the branch has been doing and its objectives.

I'd like to go back to one other item. I'm going to took into the matter of scales. I was under the impression that scales were mandatory, but you have cast a seed of doubt. I will make the appropriate inquiry into that.

MS. SANFORD: I'm interested in how the minister gets these guidelines out to the various farmers in the province, and whether they include the Okanagan as well, where there have been serious problems with respect to accommodation. Have they gone to the Okanagan as well?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to those guidelines, accommodation doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour; it comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health has been involved in this; how far they have gone I can't answer. That's why I was somewhat reluctant to pursue that. But I know we have pushed this considerably — there is one employee in our ministry who has taken quite a lead in this thing. As to their status now I don't know, but they are going to go through another ministry.

MS. SANFORD: The other question that I had related to farmworkers. I raised this the other day, and the minister didn't answer it. It relates to compulsory coverage by workers' compensation. They are one of the many employers in the province — I'm talking about farmers — who are not required to have their workers covered by WCB. I realize that this is one of the most dangerous occupations, particularly in view of the large number of pesticides and herbicides used on farms. I am wondering whether the minister has considered extending compulsory coverage to those farmworkers.

Some time ago I asked a question in the Legislature related to human rights and a particular case. This is the Janice Hope case, dealing with Denis Gray-Grant, the publisher. I did not receive an answer to that.... Oh, he's got four pages to read on that one. He's all prepared, this minister; he has it all typed out for him so that on any question that any member could possibly ask he just goes through his massive briefcase and hauls it out so he can read the answer for us.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in this case the penalty was waived and it was unusual for a penalty to be waived where it was such a clear-cut case of discrimination. The minister never did bring that answer to the House, and I'm wondering if he is prepared to deal with that now.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the branch really is suffering because of low morale. It is largely because the minister himself has not taken an interest in human rights. We had the McAlpine report sitting around for I don't know how long. The Human Rights Commission has made a number of recommendations with respect to changes in the Code, and we still have seen none of those changes. Apparently the only change is as a result of a court case — that's to cover a loophole. The Human Rights Commission has been doing some work in recent times. It has been holding public hearings and coming up with recommendations, and the minister is not taking any action in that area.

We also have the director, Nola Landucci, ordering silence out of the human rights branch. I think if that human rights branch were comfortable with the work that it's doing, with the attitude of government towards the issue of human rights, and with what the minister himself says and does in terms of the protection of human rights in this province, we

[ Page 6487 ]

wouldn't have the headline saying that Landucci orders silence out of her own staff. Human rights are really too important to have a mouthpiece put on the various workers so they cannot even discuss the issues of human rights in this province.

It's because this minister does not take enough interest and does not show enough leadership. I remember reading an article at one point where the minister indicated that he did not even like to appoint boards of review, and it was a terrible decision that he had to make. So when a human rights issue cannot be resolved by the branch, the director refers the issue to the minister to appoint a board of inquiry. Mr. Chairman, there are as many boards of inquiry waiting to be appointed as he has appointed. He is not taking any leadership there, and it's only because of pressure that he got involved to the extent where he at least commissioned a report. Finally the whole thing was turned over to the Attorney-General, even though the report recommends that changes are needed in the Human Rights Code.

I have a few other issues that I would like to raise with the minister. One of them relates to the youth employment program. We have already made reference to this program; I expressed my concern about it. The minister gave a long, convoluted explanation the other day about why they have cut out awarding jobs through the Work in Government program to all those volunteer agencies which in the past have turned to the youth employment program in order to get some assistance in hiring students to help them in what are really very worthwhile projects in this province. The fact that the minister has given these organizations no lead-time has made it very difficult for a number of them to carry on with the works they have been doing in this province. It seems to me that if the minister is going to cut out a program.... I have here just a partial list of the non-profit societies in the province which relied on the provincial government's youth employment program to provide them with from one to eight students to ensure that they could carry on the work that they were doing.

Based on the information that the minister gave the other day, I cannot understand why it cost $3,529 to hire a student through the Work in Government program in 1980 and $878 per job in the private sector. Is it because those in the private sector are basically at the minimum wage rate? I know I'm putting the questions thick and fast. Maybe I should give the minister an opportunity to consult with his staff, because he doesn't have anything prepared on this one to read. Is it because they are largely minimum-wage jobs and the cost of the job is lower in the private sector that they have gone to the private sector this year? He talks about jobs of a more permanent nature that are being opened up through this new employment opportunities program which replaces the youth employment program. Surely there are many jobs in Work in Government — in parks, with municipal councils — that can become permanent. I don't accept his explanation that in order to have permanent jobs he's worked out the Work in Government program and the work being done through the societies.

We have many lists of people who had been approved and who have just been eliminated through that Work in Government program: the Campbell River and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the John Howard Society, the Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society, the Point Holmes Recreation Society, the Hornby Island New Horizons Society, and on and on. There are pages and pages of them that have just been eliminated, with no lead-time. Suddenly it's all going into the private sector. I wonder if the minister would comment on those issues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In your first question, as I recall, you were concerned about the case of Hope v. Gray-Grant. I can tell you, I never felt very good about that case. In fact, I think that's going to be an albatross I'll pack straight to the end of the road. I disagree, frankly, with what's involved. However, the law is the law, and I had no alternative. The concern is whether a penalty should or should not have been assessed in addition to the consent judgment.

MS. SANFORD: That's normal.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it is not.

MS. SANFORD: According to your staff, it is.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The statement that it is normal for a cash penalty to be assessed against the respondent where a board of inquiry finds that there has been a clear violation of the Code is incorrect. Since 1975 boards of inquiry under the Code....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We might as well be very clear about this, instead of chattering on and not saying anything, Madam Member. Do you want the facts or not?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right then, let's get right down to it.

Under the Code there were findings of discrimination in 39 of 56 cases referred. Monetary damages were awarded to complainants in 22 of those cases. Costs have been awarded the branch in only six, notably in the 1979 case of Misty's and the 1981 decision of Chelsea and the Alkali Braves. If you recall, that particular case involved native Indian boys and a hockey team.

In the case of Janice Hope v. Denis Gray-Grant, the publisher of Western News, no damage award under the section could be established because the nature of the violation was such that no identifiable victim could be demonstrated. I would ask you if you wouldn't mind looking at the appropriate provision of the Human Rights Code, section 17(c). That requires the victim to have suffered aggravated damages in order to assess a cash penalty for a contravention. The respondent — in this case Gray-Grant — was willing to consent to a cease and desist order. It was not necessary to have a protracted hearing, only to obtain an order for costs.

The object of the Code is not to seek revenge or impose penalties just for the sake of it. The section says: "where the board is of the opinion that the person" — and we're talking about punitive damages on two restricted conditions — "(i) who contravened this act did so knowingly or with a wanton disregard; and (ii) discriminated against suffered aggravated damages in respect of his feelings or self-respect, the board may order the person who contravened this act to pay to the person discriminated against compensation not exceeding...." As a matter of fact, that was made clear by the director of the human rights branch.

[ Page 6488 ]

With respect to the amendment to the Code you made reference to.... I'm not sure whether you said it was a housekeeping amendment, but it really wasn't. What it did was make.... I can't speak to legislation in estimates so I'm not saying anything. But as far as the Human Rights Code is concerned, you are as aware, as I am, Madam Member, that the Human Rights Commission is filing its recommendations today. Why would anybody in their right mind bring in massive changes when in fact three years ago a commission was requested to search the community, travel and make recommendations? It doesn't really add up.

The number of boards appointed is seven. Of the 16 cases which came across my desk, seven were appointed, there are five outstanding, and the last two, I think, arrived on June 11. To make a decision on those is not necessarily that easy.

As far as farmworkers and the WCB are concerned, that is subject to a thorough analysis and investigation right now. As a matter of fact, about eight weeks ago I requested my staff to have a good look at it.

I think that answers all the questions, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: You didn't mention the costs of the youth employment program, Mr. Minister, but I won't pursue that at this moment. I would just like the minister to know that the external affairs coordinator for the Alma Mater Society anticipates that some 500 positions are going to be lost because of the changes that have been made. These are lost to university students who obviously have to get back to school next year. He's handled that very badly, Mr. Chairman. If he wants to make the kinds of changes he obviously has made, he should give lead time and ensure that there are alternatives available for those people that are going to be affected.

The essential services group that sits over in Vancouver is an advisory agency he set up under the act. We have never been able to determine what on earth they do. I know that appointment was made for seven years, but I wonder if the minister can tell us what reports he receives from that group. How does he ensure that the money being spent each year through that essential services advisory agency is well spent? As the minister, what sort of checks does he have on it? They don't file an annual report in the House, and we don't know what on earth they are doing. I would like to know how many reports the minister receives, whether he is satisfied with those reports and whether he would consider releasing them. What check does he have on the kind of work apparently being done? I say "apparently" because I don't think anybody really knows.

I have another question. Have the companies involved in the northeast coal deal given assurances to the government that they will be training their own apprentices? Have they filed a manpower plan? Is there an assurance that these companies will be training from the outset the kinds of skilled people that they need, or will they have to pirate them from other companies that have already been involved in training? Has the minister been involved in ensuring that the development of the community at Tumbler Ridge is going to ensure adequate numbers of jobs for women, for instance? Is that an issue that he has looked into, or addressed, as he likes to say?

I'm wondering if the minister has decided to initiate a levy-and-grant system in the apprenticeship training program. He talked about taking some action. We know that there are more apprentices being trained than there were before. We know that he's been attempting to meet that critical need. But he's also saying that he has to take some further action, because what he's done has not been successful enough. We certainly concur with that. Is it a levy-and-grant system that he is considering at this moment? I would like the minister to answer that.

I have two further questions. First, does the minister feel that people who work in British Columbia today should earn enough money to meet the poverty line? If so, is he prepared to make an immediate change to the minimum wage? Because people who work at the minimum wage do not reach the poverty line in British Columbia. Does the minister feel that those people who are employed as full-time employees should earn enough money to meet the poverty line? I hope the minister has that question.

My last question has to do with his federal counterpart. I'm wondering if the Minister of Labour here has been in contact with the Minister of Labour federally in relation to the labelling of chemicals. We still don't have a proper system of labelling of chemicals in this country. As I understand it, it has to be done on a nationwide basis, rather than just provincially. What conversations and discussions and what action has the minister taken to ensure that will happen in Canada?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I thought I answered the question with respect to chemicals the other day. I'm concerned very much about the levy-grant system. It's very difficult. Regarding all of the other matters which you've raised, Madam Member, I appreciate the sincerity of your concern and I have taken note of them. We'll see if we can do a better job, okay?

MS. SANFORD: I have to comment, Mr. Chairman, that he obviously knows nothing about what's happening with northeast coal.

The minister has disappointed us in many ways, because we don't feel that he has the self-confidence and the capability to make the important decisions that have to be made in that minister's office. Obviously the response that he gave to the second member for Surrey today indicates that he is completely unwilling to face up to the fact that he is the Minister of Labour. These labour disputes happen around him, and be goes and hides in his office. He doesn't want to talk about them. We have never been able to get a word out of that minister. We have not been asking him for details of any negotiations at all — just some indication that he is at least concerned and involved.

The other things that we have been concerned about relate to the government as a whole: the money that they are spending this year, the increases in the estimates, and cutting back particularly in some areas where they certainly should if they are concerned about expenditures. Vote 140, which is the minister's office, contains increases in office expenses of $2,800, and increases in office furniture and equipment of $1,500. If the government is serious about ensuring that costs are kept down, rather than cutting out services to senior citizens, who are relying on the homemaker service, and the blind — and all the other cuts they have been making — these are the areas where the government should be cutting. I therefore move that vote 140 — the minister's office, office furniture and office expenses — be reduced by the sum of $4,300.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 6489 ]

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

An hon. member requested that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Vote 140 approved.

On vote 141: ministerial management and policy development, $3,433,679.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, here we have the same kind of behaviour that we've seen throughout the various ministries of this government. We have an increase in travel expense from $94,000 to $290,000. We also see office expenses going from $58,000 up to $129,000 and office furniture and equipment going from $22,000 up to $39,000, and so on and so on.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 141 be reduced by the sum of $329,099.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record by reminding everyone that this is the government that couldn't find $25,000 so that the blind people in the lower mainland would have bus passes which could be used both in Vancouver and Victoria.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 18

NAYS 28

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

Vote 141 approved.

On vote 142: industrial relations and occupational safety, $5,139,035.

MS. SANFORD: Under this vote I'm concerned again about the increase in office expense. That Ministry of Labour likes to have fancy offices; that's my assumption. Under this vote alone they've gone from $87,000 up to $152,000 in one year. In a year when we're cutting back on services to people — disabled, seniors, handicapped, blind — it seems to me that we should not be allowing this kind of increase for office expenses. I would therefore move that vote 142 be reduced by the sum of $65,610.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. I would hope as well that when you are speaking on the amendment, hon. members, your comments are also in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I would like to speak in support of the amendment. I suggest that maybe out of this $65,000 the government could deduct $25,000 to ensure that those blind people in the lower mainland can use their bus passes interchangeably in Victoria and in Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first time the member did that the Chair allowed the discussion to take place; the second time the Chair advised the member such debate would be out of order. I now advise the member that any repetition of a discussion that is clearly out of order on this amendment will have to be dealt with by the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that making an appeal on behalf of disabled people in this province is ruled out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That comment is equally out of order, and I'm sure the member appreciates that.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 28

[ Page 6490 ]

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

Vote 142 approved.

On vote 143: manpower, $43,372,956.

MS. SANFORD: Again we have office expenses leaping up. There is a $125,000 increase in office expenses under this vote. That's an awful lot of money when the government is pleading poverty all over the place. I do not understand why they will not accept these amendments that put the office expenses back to a reasonable sum. In one year they go up from $236,000 to $362,000. In addition to that, we have an increase in travel expenses totalling $84,000 under this vote alone. For that reason I'm moving that vote 143 be reduced by $210,164 in the interest of the public of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 28

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

MR. NICOLSON: I notice that there is $150 this year under "rentals — outside suppliers." There was nothing last year. Can the minister tell us what this $150 is for?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I will make the appropriate inquiry and find out.

Vote 143 approved.

Vote 144: safety engineering, $7,411,531 — approved.

Vote 145: human rights programs, $1,184,429 — approved.

Vote 146: boards and agencies, $2,473,010 — approved.

On vote 147: building occupancy charges, $2,450,779.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we've been chagrined on this side of the House, because we have attempted for so long to try to bring some rational approach to this government and its expenditures. Time and time again we have moved motions which would save the government money, and each time they have turned us down. I don't understand why the government has not accepted even one of these motions, which would assist the people of British Columbia in paying their taxes and in obtaining the services that they need. We would have saved the government millions and millions of dollars by this time if they had accepted our motions: under Forests, $12 million; Provincial Secretary, $5 million; Transportation and Highways, $11 million; Environment, $10 million; Finance, $22 million; Attorney-General, $11 million — all of these are millions of dollars, and the government could have saved that money if they had accepted any of these motions that we proposed. These are reasonable motions, Mr. Chairman; these are motions cutting the fat out of the budget.

Here again, under this vote 147, we have building occupancy charges going up by $307,000 — from $2,143,000 to $2,450,000 in one year — in a year when we have all of these cuts in various ministries. Mr. Chairman, I therefore move that vote 147 be reduced by the sum of $307,779.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 26

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

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, did I hear the name of the Minister of Human Resources in that division?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

Vote 147 approved.

Vote 148: computer and consulting charges, $885,470 — approved.

[ Page 6491 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 137: minister's office, $123,656.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you on a point of order?

MR. HALL: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was the Chair's understanding that the member was rising on a point of order.

MR. HALL: Why would you be under that impression? I never said "point of order." I just rose to my feet and was recognized, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member. Hon. members will appreciate that it is the responsibility of the Chair in estimates to first recognize the minister whose estimates we are debating. The member would greatly help the Chair....

MR. HALL: That's about twenty-fifth on my priority list. However, if the minister requires some help, I'll certainly defer to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, this has been a most exacting and interesting year for this ministry, particularly in view of a number of new federal initiatives, all of which are intrusive into provincial domain. I'm also pleased to announce to the House the establishment of B.C. House in Ottawa and the appointment of Mr. Alexander Hart, QC, the B.C. agent-general in London. We're very, very happy indeed to have a man of Mr. Hart's calibre performing that responsibility for our great province in England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think I'm getting a message from the Leader of the Opposition.

I would also like to express my personal thanks to Mr. James Matkin for joining the ministry.

I know that all of the members will have a number of questions, which I'm delighted to listen to now, so that I can develop some answers before or after 6 o'clock.

MR. HALL: We've examined these three votes very closely, and we've examined the record of the minister very closely. Nothing which we've been able to discover would bring us any closer to supporting these three votes this year than anything we've been able to find previously would have enabled us to support this minister's activities in previous years. We've looked at the votes. As far as we can see, it's a sinecure for this member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I think that the Premier has found a job for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and this job is to be Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. We won't support vote 137, we won't support vote 138 and we won't support vote 139. It's not that we don't think there are some things in those votes that we should support, but as long as the attitude is that this is a sinecure for that member, we're not going to support them. We've examined the votes, and to the best of our ability all we can find is a new car. That's all we can find of any significance in the vote.

This minister's claim to fame is that he's the only minister who has an unlisted postal code number. That's about the size of it, and we're not going to support these votes.

Vote 137 approved.

Vote 138: intergovernmental relations, $2,455,662 — approved.

Vote 139: building occupancy charges, $113,000 — approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to question 21 on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the auditor-general's annual return for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, submitted in accordance with section 4 of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, a report of the authority on its operations for the preceding year.

Introduction of Bills

PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M216, Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. BROWN: Too long has this nation needed a bill like this, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The time for debating the bill is certainly not during its introduction.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GUARANTEED
AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, An Act to Amend the Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6492 ]

MR. HALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning, following receipt of the report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, I raised a point of order with you regarding standing order 115: "When the committee on any private bill reports to the House that the preamble of such bill has not been proved to its satisfaction, or otherwise reports unfavourably on the bill, the committee must also state the grounds upon which it arrived at such a decision. No bill so reported on shall be placed on the Orders of the Day...."

I then asked, Mr. Speaker: "What would the grounds be on which the committee reported unfavourably? Were they contained in the report?" Your response to me is in the Blues, and went as follows: "Hon. member, that would be a matter of debate when the motion to adopt the report is put. The Chair cannot possibly anticipate when that might be. The motion is not before the House just now." That placed me in something of a quandary, because no motion was then forthcoming.

Today, when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair, a point of order was taken regarding the same matter, and the Deputy Speaker then advised my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that he was taking this matter under advisement. I wish to raise with the Chair the fact that I raised it on Friday — I can only put this as respectfully as I can — and I was not satisfied with the response I got from the Speaker on it that time, nor am I satisfied at the moment. I think I'm caught in a circle that has no particular avenue for me to find a way out, because there has been no report put forward.

I therefore say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to raise it again and ask for your guidance as to when I can raise it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I please respond. In order that a conclusive opinion can be given, will the member give the Chair time to review the precedents on this matter? Is that satisfactory?

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to your consideration, when you are consulting the authorities, the tenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 778, in which it appears that perhaps the origin of this standing order lies. It says: "If the proof of the preamble be negatived, the committee report to the House, 'That the preamble has not been proved.' In 1836, the committee on the Durham (South West) Railway bill were ordered to reassemble 'for the purpose of reporting specially the preamble, and the evidence and reasons in detail on which they came to the resolution that the preamble had not been proved.'" So it would appear that this standing order was probably founded on a precedent such as that, and that would obviously be the intent of the standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll take that citation into consideration.

If all hon. members could be seated, please, we're having procedural difficulty with the motion made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) on the introduction of the bill having to do with guaranteed income for need, or something like that. It does not appear and will not appear on the order paper till tomorrow. So I would suggest that the hon. member introduce the bill tomorrow.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Hon. Mr. Phillips filed an answer to question 55 on the order paper.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon members, it appears to me that perhaps we have gone through an afternoon of, shall we say, combative debate. Please come to order, so that we can tie up the business.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

ERRATUM:

In volume 12, Number 11, Thursday, June 25, 1981 at page 6436, first column, line 42, Hon. Mr. Heinrich is reported to have said:

...is to encourage friendship. But I think it's a valid

This should read:

...is to encourage apprenticeship. But I think it's a valid

Appendix

60 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to the plans of 20th Century Energy Corporation for a mine on Gambier Island —

1. Has the Government received a Stage 1 report for the mine?

If the answer to No. 1 is "yes":

2. Has the steering committee approved the report?

3. Has the Minister decided to make the report available to all members of the House?

If the answer to No. 1 is "no":

[ Page 6493 ]

4. Has a decision been made to exempt 20th Century Energy Corporation from the Ministry's "Procedures for obtaining approval of metal mine development"?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

1. No.

2. N/A.

3. N/A.

4. No.

55 Mr. Leggatt asked the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following questions:

With respect to the surcharge which is to be levied for movement of coal along the Anzac spur line —

1. Is the per tonne charge to be the same for thermal as for metallurgical coal?

2. What is the per tonne surcharge for Teck Corporation?

3. What is the per tonne surcharge for Denison Mines Ltd.?

4. For what period is the surcharge to be fixed?

5. What is the formula for determining at what rate the surcharge will escalate when it ceases to be fixed?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

1. Yes.

2. $2.50 per metric tonne.

3. $3.00 per metric tonne.

4. The surcharge will be fixed until April 1, 1989.

5. Increases will be in proportion to increases in the price of coal. To this base increase is added a supplemental increase based on the real price increase of coal, using 1988 as the benchmark year.