[ Page 4445 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 4445

Tabling Documents –– 4445

Oral Questions

Legal Services Society. Ms. Brown –– 4445

Mr. Lank

Proposed curriculum changes. Mr. Rose –– 4446

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 4447

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 4447

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Skelly

Division on amendment

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 4456

On the amendment

Mr. Passarell –– 4459

Ms. Brown –– 4461

Mr. Cocke –– 4465

Hydro And Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 4467

Tabling Documents –– 4467

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce to the assembly today a very distinguished career servant of our country, Mr. Jacques Asselin, who has just recently assumed the position of consul-general in Seattle. He represents the interests of our country in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. I'd like all hon. members to bid him a very cordial welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, again today I want to introduce to the House someone from the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. I ask the members to please welcome Hanne Turner-Pannekoek.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are several members of the Malvern Rugby Club from Worcestershire, England, along with their manager David Robins. This evening at 6 o'clock they will be playing their first game on this continent, against Velox of Victoria, at Windsor Park in Oak Bay. I'd like the House to wish them well and welcome them.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I'm very proud to introduce my mother and father, Doug and Helen Reynolds, who are out visiting us from Toronto and enjoying this beautiful British Columbia. With them is my wife Yvonne.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a very good friend and constituent of mine, Al Clark and his wife Lennie. With Al and Lennie this afternoon are two guests from Yorkshire, England, Jack and Joan Forster. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Murdoch and students from L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary School in Surrey. Would the House bid them welcome.

MR. PARKS: I would ask the House to join with me in making welcome a group of young British Columbians who are visiting today. They are grade 11 social studies students from the largest high school in British Columbia, Centennial School in Coquitlam. I'd also like to take this opportunity to commend the two teachers sponsoring them here today, giving them an opportunity to see democracy in action. Please welcome them to our House.

MS. BROWN: A group of students from Edmonds Junior Secondary School will be visiting the precincts later this afternoon. I wonder if the House would bid them welcome in anticipation now.

Introduction of Bills

HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1984

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984.

Bill 24 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.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the 1982-83 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources: "Services for People."

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the fifteenth annual report of the activities of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board regarding flood control.

Oral Questions

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General, and it has to do with the Legal Services Society. Is the Attorney-General willing to accede to the request of the Legal Services Society to delay any consideration of the act amending that society until after his task force have given him their report?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the Legislature and would proceed according to the House business and the priorities given by the House Leader. I do not believe that the work of the task force and the consideration of this bill are in conflict, because all the bill does is to allow the society, which has been created to administer legal aid, to set its own priorities and to do the things the society did before to try to meet its budget and which it was unable to do because of the decision in the case of Mountain. So it restores the authority to the society, and that legislation will be needed, regardless of what the task force recommends. The task force will bring in some far-reaching recommendations, I believe, for legal aid. As a result of those recommendations, the government and the Legal Services Society may wish to set entirely different priorities. Through the passing of this legislation the society will be in that position. Although the timing of the two may give difficulty to some, and some in the legal profession, I do not believe that the two are in conflict, or that one can't proceed without the other.

[2:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on Monday the Legal Services Society indicated that in fact the passage of this piece of legislation at this time would curtail the services they would be able to deliver, because they haven't got the budget to do it. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General would be willing to maintain the level of funding which the Legal Services Society presently has, at least until he has had the report from his task force at the end of June.

[ Page 4446 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the budget and estimates were laid before this House on February 22 or thereabouts. My estimates have been debated and approved, and in those estimates an amount of money was voted by this assembly for legal aid. So the society has known all along what its budget would be. That budget regrettably is less than it was last year, but that is the case with all social services in this province, with the exception of Health and a few other items. They have known that they must meet that budget. We have been funding additional overruns caused by the Mountain case through warrant. I have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we don't have continuation of warrant funding. It's my duty to bring forward the means that will permit the society — like all other organizations of government and all branches of government — to live within its budget. While what the member is saying might be desirable from the standpoint of some, it is not a course that I can accede to. I do not believe that essential services need necessarily be cut. I understand that the prime saving that the society will attempt to make is in the area of summary conviction offences unlikely to result in imprisonment, which mostly means impaired driving. So the consequences of any further cut that the society will have to make is largely that first-offender impaired drivers will not get legal aid. That will be the major result. I don't believe that that is going to result in a major justice disruption.

MS. BROWN: The society has indicated by telegram to the Attorney-General and also in their press statement that they will be cutting back in the area of people who will be in danger of incarceration, not just impaired drivers who are in no danger of incarceration. However, the minister recognizes that the society needed additional funds as a result of the Mountain decision. What they are now asking is the continuation of those funds so that they can continue their job at least until the report of the task force is presented to the minister at the end of June. Is the minister prepared to accede to that request?

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

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General indicated that representation by counsel for persons charged with any Criminal Code offence as a first offender.... Surely the Attorney-General wishes to withdraw that remark. The person has been charged; he's not a first offender.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member has me out of context, because I was speaking of first offenders in relation to the punishment that would result. First offenders for impaired driving — people who are convicted the first time for that offence — don't go to prison. It was in that context that I was using the expression. People who are dealt with by the courts as second offenders in impaired driving have a mandatory minimum of 14 days in prison. They would then be the people who would be before the courts in jeopardy of their liberty, and that was the context I used in my remarks.

MR. LAUK: That's one of the problems that the Legal Aid Society is having with the Attorney-General. I wonder if the Attorney-General can clarify this. If the person charged with a criminal offence is treated as a first offender before trial and conviction, the Attorney-General then argues that cutbacks to the funding of legal services is, in effect, depriving these people of counsel, increasing the likelihood of conviction and therefore increasing the likelihood of a second charge later on where incarceration is likely. In other words, can the Attorney-General now argue that it's not a breach of the charter to withdraw funds from legal services, depriving these people of counsel?

HON. MR. SMITH: I know that there will be some who will argue that every time a lawyer is not provided free by the state the charter is being violated.

MR. LAUK: It's not free. The profession is subsidizing this government.

HON. MR. SMITH: Free to the recipient.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Fortunately the decisions on the charter will be made by those other than myself or the second member for Vancouver Centre. I really fail to understand his basic contention, because people who are charged with summary conviction offences, if they are found guilty, are not generally or are very sparingly imprisoned. Those people would be the ones who, under the proposed cut, would not receive legal aid. People who will likely go to prison if convicted, or charged with other than summary conviction offences, will receive legal aid. When I say "people, " Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to people who meet the qualifying criteria for legal aid.

MS. BROWN: This is precisely what the Legal Services Society say they will not be able to continue doing, unless the additional funding is at least covered until the end of June. The Attorney-General knows that.

I have two very short questions and I'll run them quickly into one. Has the Attorney-General given any consideration to the consequences of the financial cutbacks and the provision of Bill 3 regarding the cost-sharing agreement for legal aid which we have with the federal government? The second question is: has the Attorney-General considered that the province may lose federal funding as a result of withdrawing legal services in serious court proceedings?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that the member would certainly join with me in trying to ensure that that doesn't occur and that we are within the spirit of the old and any new federal-provincial agreement. But those agreements do not provide that we must make available public- supported legal defences in all criminal cases. They do give some leeway. Yes, we have considered that, and we will do our utmost to remain within the ambit of that agreement.

PROPOSED CURRICULUM CHANGES

MR. ROSE: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last evening in Prince George one of the first in a series of public hearings into the government's proposed curriculum changes affecting graduation requirements was held. In light of their rejection by most of the 13 responsible groups appearing at the Prince George hearings, has the minister decided to reconsider his proposals?

[ Page 4447 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a formal reply or response as a result of the hearings that were conducted in Prince George last night. I can assure you, the telephone call which came to me arising out of those hearings.... A number of constructive suggestions were offered, the very reason why we are hitting 15 regional centres throughout Prince George. Unfortunately, Coquitlam rejected the idea. The other school districts did it, but Coquitlam didn't. It's beyond me why they wouldn't allow their superintendent to chair it.

The interesting thing about the hearings, Mr. Speaker, is that it gives an opportunity to those people who have a genuine interest in education to make constructive suggestions. Most of it has been positive.

MR. ROSE: It's interesting. When I first asked the minister whether he intended to conduct public hearings, the day of his announcement on new curricular changes, he hadn't even considered them. Now he's making a virtue of necessity.

Since he's made repeated references to public demands for changes, reflected in his discussion paper on graduation requirements, and the same minister has refused very substantial public demands for a royal commission into education, I would like to know whether the minister is prepared to table the research which verifies a public demand for the elimination of curricular options, which, besides decimating the fine arts programs, potentially calls for high school streaming for the various groups of kids according to their abilities in our high schools, a retrograde step if I've ever heard of one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the introduction of a paper on revised curriculum was in effect a response to demands made by the community — many people within the educational community and the public at large. One of the things the member seems to forget is that public education is just that, public education, and it's not public education for the vested interest of some people within the educational community. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has proposed a 1950s model of rigid streaming in high school, and then he sent his officials off to conduct the hearings. I'd like to ask the minister when he's going to get out from behind his desk, face the public reaction four-square, and attend these meetings, instead of merely sending his paid acolytes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would be delighted to attend every one of those hearings, and as a matter of fact....

MR. ROSE: Why don't you?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right now it's not quite possible to do it each night of the week or each day of the week while the House is sitting. However, I will tell you this: it doesn't matter where I go, the criticism — if there's going to be any — will come from some districts, including my own, with respect to restraint monetary matters, but when it comes down to examinations and curriculum, it's "You're doing exactly fine. Keep it up and don't back down."

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. Mainland Magazine of Vancouver is now the owner of Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Jim Pattison, owner of Mainland, has announced his intention to sell the company. Has the province been advised whether Mr. Pattison intends also to sell Beautiful British Columbia magazine with this sale of Mainland?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $155,718.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I normally take part in debates of this minister's estimates, primarily because my riding, as the minister is very much aware, accounts for a large volume of the trees that are sent largely to other areas of the province for manufacturing. We have currently two large pulp mills, although we used to have three, operating in my riding.

I don't wish to cover ground which was canvassed yesterday very competently by my colleagues, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and other members of this House. I do feel that there are a couple of issues which I would like to discuss with the minister, and therefore I'll get right to the point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Be brief.

[2:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will, Mr. Minister. As a matter of fact, I have a group of schoolchildren coming in at 3 o'clock, so I have to be finished by then.

Mr. Chairman, the first question I wish to pose to the minister — and I know this was canvassed very briefly yesterday — is a topic which comes up again and again all over my riding. This deals with the small business enterprise program. This is a program that was very slow in getting off the ground. When the minister announced this program some years ago, they had a lot of problems — I think that was the word the minister used — in getting the program underway. The program is underway now; however, the complaint I get is that there is not enough volume of timber being made available to the small or would-be small operators on the coast of British Columbia. I can only assume that perhaps the same situation exists in the interior of the province, but I don't really know. I do know from the volume of mail and people I meet with personally that when they apply for timber under this program it is very difficult to come by.

I raise the matter in this House and question the minister because he has said on numerous occasions to the large multinational forest companies — and I'm not denying that they have a place in this province — "use it or lose it." The reality and the facts are that while the statistics are very

[ Page 4448 ]

difficult to come by, and this kind of information is almost impossible to get, it is pretty well conceded by anyone connected to the forest industry that the large multinationals and their TFLs simply are not using the large amount of timber supplies that they have tied up on the coast of British Columbia. They don't need it. They're not using it, and in some cases have no intentions of ever using it.

What I'm asking the minister to do today is to consider, on behalf of those small operators who could provide literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for the people living on the coast of British Columbia and in the interior as well, making that timber available to those people and getting to work on it. Don't say: "Yes, we're doing this and that.... You've laid off a large number of people in the Forest Service. You don't have the bodies within your ministry to carry out a program of the nature I'm talking about at the present time.

I want the minister to know that I'm very much aware of what is happening in terms of people who are in the business but unable to get timber, and of people who would like to go into the business of extracting, where they can, some timber volumes from our forests. As I said before, the job creation aspect of this alone should prompt you to give serious consideration to this proposal.

While I'm on that particular subject, Mr. Chairman, we have a very special problem up on the central coast of British Columbia, and I am sure the minister's deputy will be familiar with this. There have been a number of studies of the types and volumes of wood available on the central coast, and since the present government closed Ocean Falls, Mr. Williston has been attempting to attract some other type of operation into that part of the coast of British Columbia. In fact you may be interested to know that currently, through the offices of Mr. Williston, the private land that was associated with the Ocean Falls Corporation is presently being reviewed by competent people to determine what volumes they have on the private land. But here is the problem: when Mr. Williston has met with companies — sometimes foreign, but that's all right — that may be interested in moving into that area to extract the rather low-grade type of timber — and it's very rough terrain — we find that the drawback is stumpage rates in that area. In that area you can't equate the kind of stumpage rates to that low-grade type of timber — a lot of it is scrub cedar; that kind of thing — with the type of timber you're likely to get on Vancouver Island and other areas of the coast. In order to attract companies to start logging operations and possibly milling operations on that part of the coast, you have to provide them with incentives. So I'm asking the minister now to review that particular situation. Consult with Mr. Williston, who is very well versed.... He was Minister of Forests for many years.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's the guy. That's the same Mr. Williston. We had our personal disagreements from time to time. Nonetheless, Mr. Williston is very knowledgeable on this particular subject. I'm urging you to get together with him and discuss the matter.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: "Bring back Williston," my colleague says.

I'm going to change topics again, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. I'm getting quite a large volume of mail — I would suppose most MLAs in the House are — dealing with another matter: the increase in rents on special-use permits. I have a few letters that I have taken out of my files. I have forwarded most of these to the people in the Forest Service. I don't expect you, Mr. Minister, to be familiar with each individual case. I pulled these letters out of my files as an example of the kind of thing that's happening.

Harmony Seafoods is a young, small company which is attempting to produce oysters on Forest Service land, for which they have a special-use permit. Their rent has gone up 300 percent in the last year, Mr. Minister. That's a pretty heavy blow to a company that perhaps should be applying for exemption from rent in this particular case, since they are in the forefront of what is a relatively small, new industry starting in British Columbia and dealing with aquaculture, oyster-growing and that kind of thing. They are having a very difficult time. Their rent, through the Forest Service, under a special-use permit, has gone up 300 percent.

I have a number of other letters, but there is no point in going through them all. I'll use the example of Harmony Seafoods; it's as good as any. I know that the minister and his deputy know very well what I'm talking about. I would hope that the minister would seriously consider.... If you are going to increase the rent under these special-use permits and bring them up to the level of the Ministry of Lands, at least bring them up gradually. Don't knock these people over the head and possibly put them out of business in their first year of operation, particularly where there are special circumstances involved.

I have one last item. I know this topic has been discussed many times in the House — this year, last year, for the last 50 years. Nonetheless, it's worth talking about again. It is the matter of silviculture and reforestation in this province.

I want to put forward a proposal that may be a little different than other proposals we've heard before in this House, particularly yesterday and the day before during debate of these estimates. I've done a little figuring. To be fair, I must admit that some of the ideas that I'm going to be putting forward here in a few minutes are not all my own. Prof. Kimmins from the University of British Columbia has done quite a bit of work on this. The minister may be familiar with it. There are some press clippings quoting Prof. Kimmins on the matters that I'm about to discuss.

In my view, reforestation and silviculture have started to take a back seat to other activities of this government. Whether it be for the large companies — the MacMillan Bloedels, B.C. Forest Products and all the rest of them — or whether it be for the small logger, the long-term well-being of the industry depends solely on reforestation, thinning, fertilizing and those kinds of programs. I'm not going to give you a speech about that; I've done that before. As a result of my last speech you cut back on the programs some more, so I'd better not talk about that.

What I'm on about is tying reforestation in with employment. Prof. Kimmins from UBC suggested that in reforestation, planting and thinning programs we could put 30,000 people to work in British Columbia today. I'm quoting the professor. I believe that in my own huge riding, which extends some 350 miles as the crow flies — or seagull — up the coast of British Columbia from Howe Sound to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella, we could employ 1,000 people in reforestation and thinning programs today. In my riding at the present

[ Page 4449 ]

time the unemployment rate has been reduced slightly, I'm told, from 36 percent to 34 percent as of last week, which is some improvement. Just think, Mr. Chairman: we could put 1,000 people to work in my own riding — just in one area of British Columbia — people who are now perhaps receiving UIC or welfare. Let's say, to use round figures, that they're receiving somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 a month. The figure is probably higher than that, but I'm just using round figures. For 1,000 people that comes to $500,000 per month of taxpayers' money through unemployment insurance or Human Resources payments, or some $6 million per year. If these people were working a regular 261 days per year, involved in reforestation and thinning programs, they would not only be not collecting that taxpayers' money on UIC and welfare, but contributing in taxes to the government some $4,176,000 a year if you figure it out on the average net tax payable to federal and provincial governments. As a net result of all of this, the government would be not only making money and saving money on payments but giving these people the opportunity to make a dignified and decent living and improving our forests for the future at the same time.

The multiplier effect of employing 1,000 people....

I'm not talking about the 30,000 now that the professor talked about. The multiplier effect generally used by the Employers' Council of British Columbia is two. So for every job created in reforestation you would be creating two jobs somewhere else in the community. Even at this basic wage of $20,880 per year per person on the standard 261 days per year that we're talking about, these people would not be putting that money away in the sock or spending it in Reno. They'd be spending it in their local community for themselves, for their children, for education and the local stores. So you'd have that multiplier effect as well taking place, say in my own riding, with the 1,000 people. Surely we can employ 30,000 people in British Columbia in reforestation.

So to sum it up, I think it makes good economic sense. We would put people to work, we would improve our forests and help the economy of British Columbia. I'm sad to say that the government in fact is doing the reverse. There are fewer reforestation and thinning programs taking place, fewer people hired and more people laid off in the Ministry of Forests. I must tell the minister I'm extremely disappointed that the government is going in that direction.

[2:45]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, just briefly responding to the member, I guess he wasn't in the House yesterday We did have some considerable discussion about ways of funding silvicultural work. As I have asked each of the members here, please don't keep equating reforestation with silviculture, because reforestation is but one part of the total silvicultural....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. I know that very well.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You have just said, Mr. Member, that reforestation is going down in British Columbia when in fact it has increased every year since I've been the Minister of Forests. As of the last planting year, I believe it will be in the order of 115 million to 120 million seedlings, which is up 10 or 15 over the previous year. However, we have cut back on other silvicultural practices through necessity, and I fully agree that we should be and we will be doing more as we can find ways of funding it. The suggestion you have made about harnessing UIC moneys and other agencies is good, and we did discuss that yesterday. It's an EBAP type of thing that I think we can have on a more continuous basis.

I still don't think it is possible in a short period of time to create employment for 30,000 people in the forests in British Columbia without destroying the forests. We don't have enough trained people. We don't really know enough about the forest to take on that much at one time. But we can do more and, indeed, we should be doing more.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We're going to have to do it or we're going to lose our forest count.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Don't interrupt.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Your oyster fellow was complaining about an increase on rentals on his special-use permit. I don't want to be a part of imposing a cost on him; it might make it difficult for him to survive. Through necessity we are increasing our rental fees so that at some point in time in the future we don't have to beef them up even more. If he has a special problem, bring it to me, Mr. Member, and I'll be very happy to discuss it with you and him to see if we can't do something to help him out.

I agree that the former Minister of Forests was well informed; in fact, it is a policy of this government to have all their Ministers of Forests well informed. We've been quite consistent in that over the years.

The mid-coast is a terribly high-cost forest. I'm very surprised, though, to hear the member for Mackenzie say that these foreign companies that want to come in and ravage our mid-coast should be given some incentive, or given the wood to do it. You didn't say that, did you?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: But that's the impression you could have created. Yes, we will look at it, and we have had special incentive rates on the mid-coast in the past. We realize it's a high-cost operating area. The wood quality is low. In order to get that moving.... As a matter of fact, a few years ago we did grant a licence to B.C. Cellulose Corp. for the purpose of trying to — if you remember — bring some of that low quality cedar down the coast in bundle booms and make oriented strand board with it. However, their timing was lousy. The recession hit just about that time, so it wasn't possible to move ahead. Perhaps now with some recovery in the economy that will be possible, and we will do anything we can, short of paying them to take the wood, in order to try to encourage that to happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We can't do that, of course. I think the former Minister of Forests under the NDP government did all kinds of funny things.

In any event, the small business enterprise program will never, ever have enough wood to satisfy all the demand placed on that program, because the more wood we have the more people will be coming forward to insist on sales. I believe last year we put out over five million cubic metres of

[ Page 4450 ]

wood under the small business program. Your area has probably a bit larger than the average volume in the small business program. But we'll never have enough, because we do have to practise sustained yield forestry. We do have commitments to existing licensees, who also create employment. We have a policy of selling the accumulated undercut which took place over this recent recession to the small business program. We have letters out to some of those licensees you referred to in the mid-coast advising them that some of the flexibility we were able to consider in cut control during the recession will not carry forward now that the recession is coming to an end. They're going to have to harvest that wood or.... Perhaps the licence forms they have are not appropriate. If that happens and we recover that wood — and we well may — then we can make it available in the small business program. I hope that they don't go broke trying to harvest it, but it does require, no matter who harvests it, that the people on the end who are the users of it can use it and make a profit using it. I think that perhaps wood will flow back, some of it at least, and the contract loggers, the market loggers, are usually a little bit more efficient.

Bella Coola. On Friday, as a matter of fact, you may be aware that I'm going up to Bella Coola to meet with some of the small business operators.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can give you that information. By the way, if you're available to come, we'd love to have you come along with us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be there.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll have to get authority from my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) to take you on the government aircraft. I'm sure that can be arranged.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The MP is flying me up in his 172.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You take all kinds of risks, don't you? Very well, we'll let you know when we'll be there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We can probably make arrangements for you to join us in travelling as well, if you wish.

I believe that covers the items mentioned, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman and members, I would like to introduce at this time my wife Donelda, who I guess has just walked out for a moment, and also my sister Elizabeth Vielbig, who is visiting us from Portland, Oregon. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: I wouldn't want discussion of the minister's estimates to pass without rising to support a lot that he and other members have said regarding the need for accelerated silviculture, and for programs in that area, to increase and improve the quality of the forest land base in the province of British Columbia.

I would certainly like to congratulate the minister at this time for having nearly doubled the amount of seedlings put in the ground during the last five years. I think the program that he has been pushing and supporting is good, and it's certainly in the long-term interests of all citizens of British Columbia. I believe that this entire question of improving the forest land base is the single most important question in the province of British Columbia at the present time. Certainly my greatest priority over the next year or two is to see the conclusion of a successful federal-provincial program, hopefully one using UIC EBAP funds to further the programs in silviculture.

When we talk about seedlings, Mr. Chairman, we should not forget that a lot more work needs to be done in the forest than just planting trees. We need to clean up the decadent stands that remain in the province. We've got to get in and do juvenile spacing work. A great deal of work is needed in the province, and I'm sure that with the cooperation of the federal government we will see the fulfilment of these programs in the coming months. We all know that we have unused greenhouse capacity to grow seedlings. We all know that we have the people who are qualified and able to do the job. The missing link is money. I'm confident that if you look at the amount of money being spent on unemployment, paying people unemployment insurance.... As I've said on the floor of this House before, maximum UIC benefits are up to about $255 a week, which figures out to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6.40 an hour. Mr. Chairman, I would submit to the House that many people who are unemployed right now would gladly go to work for $8 to $10 an hour doing the much-needed work in our forests.

I read the paper put out by Frank Oberle, the Conservative member of Parliament, which is entitled "The Green Ghetto." I found quite interesting the lack of priority given our forests by the federal government. I was somewhat surprised to find that not only do we not have a minister of forests at the national level in this country, but the first person to have any responsibility at the federal level in the area of forests is three down from the minister. I don't think that's good enough. I'm sure we will see some changes in that in the federal political arena sometime in the next three to five months.

In looking at EBAP programs, and in looking at negotiating large sums of money to put into the area of forestry, I don't think it is good enough to just throw $30 million to $40 million into the fund and say: "Let's get on with the job." Something that is going to be very important once these negotiations are complete — and it's part of the negotiations — is the framework in which the money will be spent — the rules and regulations. We must make sure that they're not just simple make-work programs, where 20- to 30-man crews are spread throughout the province without any kind of discipline or organization. It is my belief that manageable units of 40 or 80 or 120 hectares should be put out to tender to the private sector. Let's have these people bid on them; let's see proper standards of performance set down by the Forest Service; and let's have a proper inspection on completion, at which time the final payments would be made to the successful tenderer. I believe that's the efficient way to get the best value for all concerned.

As I said, I did not want to take up too much time in this particular debate, but I didn't want the opportunity to pass

[ Page 4451 ]

without recording my full support, on behalf of all my constituents, for an accelerated program in this area. I believe it is the most important subject in this Legislature in this session.

MR. MITCHELL: When we enter into this particular debate, the difference between the philosophies of the NDP opposition and the Social Credit back-benchers is interesting. I find it quite shocking — and I say this very humbly and ashamedly, I guess, as an MLA — that there is not more participation from the back-benchers of the government in an important program like the forest industry of this province. When you realize that 50 percent of nearly every dollar comes in directly through the forest industry, that there is not a philosophical commitment from the past governments that have sat over in the government side, be they coalition or be they Social Credit, in carrying out some of the statements that are made year after year after year in the forest estimates.... I remember going through some research I did a number of years ago. I'm sorry that we didn't have Hansard then, but when Colin Cameron, who was the MLA from Comox at that time, sat as a CCFer, he was promoting exactly the same philosophical attitude to our forests: that we must look at the forest industry on a sustained-yield basis. The planting, the thinning and the proper silviculture that is needed today was also needed in the late thirties and early forties. I sat up in the galleries at the back of the Speaker when Ed Kenney, who was then the coalition Minister of Forests, brought in the first forest legislation establishing the tree farm licences. He was saying then, Mr. Chairman, exactly what the minister is saying today and what professional foresters have said over the years: we must do proper silviculture within the industry. We cannot just took at planting more and more seedlings. We must look at the thinning programs, proper fertilization and the maintenance of our fire roads.

[3:00]

When Ed Kenney brought in that piece of legislation, in '47, '48 or '49 — in that general area — this was going to be the answer to sustained yield in the forest industry. After 30 years we're in many cases in worse condition than we were then. We have not had the philosophical commitment that the forest must be maintained, that the forest must be harvested properly and that those who work in that industry — the 300,000-odd people who are directly and indirectly connected to harvesting or processing our forest resources — still do not have a sense of security in where they will be going in their job. Whole communities, Mr. Chairman, are still in that very insecure feeling that in many cases they know that they have worked for a company which for many years has made a substantial profit but has not upgraded that particular mill or plant in the way that it should have been so it would be competitive today in a changing economy. I think this blame cannot be solely given to those who own the companies but should be placed on the shoulders of many Ministers of Forests who didn't have the guts to fight in their ministry, in their cabinet, in their caucus, for more money and longer range planning.

It's easy to say that this year is a bad year. When the years were good and there was lots of money being made, no one thought of it, but the long-term commitment for planning has to start in the ministry, it has to be supported by the ministry and it has to be supported by the government of our province. In my own riding — and this is something I find very shocking, which I've brought to the attention of the minister and of the deputies and of everyone, and there has been pressure from many sources — we have one little mill in Sooke. Even today, Sooke Forest Products are forced to buy cedar products from Alaska. Five years ago they were buying hemlock from Port Angeles. Sooke is right in the middle of large blocks of timber. I feel that the minister and his ministry have a responsibility to the community of Sooke, to those who work in that mill, and to the owner of that mill, who has continually poured money into upgrading and making that particular mill more efficient and competitive so that it can continue to survive in this sliding economic time. There must be a way that we in British Columbia can say to those enterprising developers and owners of a mill that if they can continue to remain competitive, they will be guaranteed some supply of affordable logs.

The big problem we have in this province is that we have a double standard of log values. I believe that stumpage is set on the Vancouver log prices. Then you have the price that no one will talk about or really reveal — the true price — and that is for the export of the raw logs. When I phone Ottawa to make inquiries about the value on 1,000 cubic metres or 100 cubic metres — or whatever the new system of grading timber is — that is confidential information, because that is information from a particular company when it is exporting logs on the open market. It's hard to find the real values. One of the figures I did come up with.... Back in 1973 British Columbia was exporting finished lumber to the U.S. for around $175 per thousand board feet; at the same time, the Oregon companies were exporting raw logs out of Oregon to Japan for about $280. So looking at that from a company's point of view, maybe they can make more money on the export market from a raw log, but as a community and as a province our first responsibility, I think, is providing jobs to Canadians and British Columbians.

I think the ministry has an obligation to look at what prices our logs are getting, where some of these logs are coming from, and what effect it's having on the community. One particular mill in my own riding, Victoria Plywood, was originally owned by the Newt Cameron interests. That particular operation was bought by Pacific Logging. What they really wanted was to purchase the timber up in the Leechtown area, the area that borders the Victoria water system. Now they have two companies: on the one hand Victoria Plywood, owned by Pacific Logging, and on the other hand the Pacific Logging division that's logging it. The cost of logs keeps going up to that particular plywood company, which now they say is uneconomical to run. It's uneconomical because the cost of the supply of the resources needed is, on the books, getting to be in excess of what you can turn out plywood profitably for.

I think there has to be some kind of a study of what prices companies are charging to firms within their own conglomerate, and what prices the community is paying. It is more beneficial for the bottom line, as my colleagues across the floor keep saying, that the company is going to receive, from selling the logs on the open market — especially into the Japanese and Chinese markets today.... I find it hard that we in British Columbia see jobs being lost time after time when countries like Vietnam and Indonesia have now stopped the export of raw logs. Although a well-developed province that depends for 50 percent of its revenue on the development of its forest industries, we still continue to allow the export of logs. I know the minister will stand up and say:

[ Page 4452 ]

"Yes, well, Pacific Logging has the timber from a Crown grant, from the old E&N land claims." I believe that the Cameron property was, private property and not part of a TFL, and I know all the bureaucratic doubletalk I'm going to get. But we must look at this from a long-term position. How is it going to affect those who live in B.C., and especially those living in my community?

I've heard all kinds of speeches made by my colleagues over here about the way the timber should be harvested and replanted, and the ideal way of looking at the harvesting of our resources in a perfect operation. I ask the minister to look at the the Victoria water board — which has just a small block of timber in a very select area just out of Victoria — and the revenue that water board has received from the block of timber in their water reserve, the type of harvesting that they have done, and the reforestation practices that they have maintained. It makes the large corporations in this province who have the vast blocks of timber look shameful. These are the things that we have to look at from the overall point of view of where we are going to go.

A lot of us who are interested in politics or in the development of British Columbia were happy when Ed Kenney brought in the original program, and it's too bad that this chamber cannot hear his words: "Sustained yield is here in British Columbia forever. The forest industry will know where they're going, and those who are working in it will have some security." I find that every year we get the same promises — the same promises that were given in the coalition days, the same promises that have come through many Social Credit ministers — and we're getting them today. I don't hold that the present minister's promises are any worse than those that were made before, but they sure are no better. We haven't improved.

I found it interesting to read a report that came from the professional foresters after they met with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). The Minister of Finance should be standing up and speaking out on this. He stated to the executive of the professional foresters that the government is very concerned about the net cost of the forestry program of the province. "Forestry is not paying its way." Why isn't it paying its way after the many years we've had tree-farm licences, sustained yield and forest management? After all the money that has been made out of that forest, we are in a situation that it is not paying its way. It is not paying its way because the present minister has been hoodwinked by the companies, he is being misled by his advisers, or he is uninformed. There must be some reason when the Minister of Finance tells the executive of the professional foresters that the forest industry is not paying its way.

[3:15]

When you go through some of the many documents that have been prepared this year.... In 1980, when I first arrived in this House for the second or third time, the minister brought in his five-year program — a wonderful program. The second year it was on schedule, but every year since it has gone down, and this year we're looking at a 30 percent reduction in total forestry expenditure. In the harvesting program we're looking at a 47 percent reduction. We all talk about silviculture, and the minister can give the platitudes as well as anybody as to what is needed, but in the silvicultural program there is a reduction of 32 percent. These are the problems that we're being faced with in British Columbia, and I don't think we have the commitment from this government that it's going to be any different. I don't think the government is going to change its attitude unless the minister starts fighting a lot harder in his cabinet and a lot harder with his own ministry staff. I know, looking from here, some of them are bigger than he is, but I say this very humorously. We must look at it a lot differently.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another one of the statements that Mr. Curtis made to the executive of the professional foresters: "Mr. Curtis seemed receptive but made no commitment on forestry make-work programs." I think the attitude is that proper silviculture, the replanting, the thinning, the protection of the fire roads is a make-work program. It is not a make-work program; it is one of the fundamental, important needs of protecting our industry. It is not a make-work program that can be turned on when there are a lot of unemployed and to say that we're going to tie it in with your UIC or your welfare programs as we have done under the EBAP or under the NEED or the Canada Works program. They are all excellent programs — not because they subsidize UIC, not because they subsidize welfare, but because they are needed in the industry. But we still tend to look at them as make-work programs. I've toured some of the projects in the Muir Creek, Sooke and Cowichan Lake areas, and I've talked to those involved. It didn't matter what particular subsidized program they are involved in; they are proud of the work they are doing. They are proud of the new opportunities they have had to learn other skills and to understand some of our forest problems. I talked to the foresters from the companies involved. I know the deputy and those in the ministry believe that we must go that way. They're proud of the work they have accomplished with a make-work program. We continue to look at it in the same vein as we have for many years looked at the staying of those on welfare. We haven't looked at it as something that is important. It's something that has to be integrated into the industry. It has to be integrated into the minister's own ministry's philosophy that when they meet with companies they are not continually hoodwinked into saying: "Well, this year is a bad year, and last year we had to spend our money on building a new plant in the southern U.S.A." All the excuses have been given over the years. We must go back to the days when Colin Cameron was promoting it back in the thirties and when Ed Kenney was talking about it in the mid forties to late forties and when the minister himself was talking about it in the eighties, with his five-year program. I think we have to look at it and do something.

So I ask the minister again in closing, Mr. Chairman, if he will do three things. I ask him to look to all those contacts I know he has for guaranteeing a supply of logs to mills and those who are processing our timber, not only in Sooke but in any part of British Columbia — that they will be guaranteed a supply of affordable logs, before logs and jobs are exported out of this province. Granted, I'm very political and I'm looking at the Sooke Forest Products operation. But the same operation, the same shortage of logs, the same problems that many small mills have.... When it comes to a guaranteed supply, though they might, live right in the forest of that particular area, they cannot get affordable logs. I think there should be some comparison between the export price for logs and the price put on the Vancouver log market. I think we must look at how it's affecting the small industries.

I ask the minister to compare the reforestation programs that any of the large companies.... In my riding I think I

[ Page 4453 ]

have one of the better ones, Pacific Logging. What they have done with the lands they took over in the last ten years....

They have made some remarkable changes in reforesting that area. I think we should compare what is being done in the Victoria watershed, which is a small area: the amount of money raised from the timber on that land; the amount of equipment they've developed. They were in the industry to build water lines, and they got into forest exploitation. They've done an effective job. I ask the minister to make some of these studies, to make some of these guarantees.

Again, I hope that someday when I go out to Sooke they will say they are now getting affordable cedar, instead of bringing it in from either Alaska or the Port Angeles area. To me, in British Columbia that is like taking coal to Newcastle. There's something wrong with it. There's something wrong with the ministry. There definitely must be some lack of action by the ministry.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to speak again in this minister's estimates, as I had my say yesterday afternoon. But, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't sit in my office, listening to my monitor, and let go by what has just been said on the floor of this House in regard to the export of raw logs from the province of British Columbia. I'll probably get some flak from both sides of the House for what I'm going to say, and probably even from some of my constituents. Nevertheless, I think it's about time that it was said in this chamber and in this province that we are really and truly short-sighted if we as legislators, in the province that has the largest wood supply of any province in this great country of Canada, think that we can continually stay out of a market which is crying out for raw logs in today's world. We can't do it. It's impossible. If we do it, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. As I said yesterday, we can't continually expect our customers to take what it is we want to sell to them. We can no longer afford that luxury in today's world.

I was in Beijing in the People's Republic of China for nine days in December 1983, just four months ago. I know what it is that that market is looking for out there. I know how it is that we in British Columbia can claim a great portion of that vast new market available to us in the orient. There are 1.1 billion people in the People's Republic of China. Recently on our television sets we saw where the President of the United States was in the People's Republic of China openly trying to sell raw logs. If we think we in British Columbia can sit idly by and not expect to take part in that part of the world market, as far as the forest industry is concerned, we are absolutely fooling ourselves, Mr. Member.

We've got to sell what the world market is looking for — at the same time as it is looking for it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't attempt to sell some of our dimension lumber to that market. But unless we are flexible and willing to sell them raw logs as well, they're going to buy them from someplace else. They don't have to buy wood from British Columbia. If you take a look right now at what the People's Republic of China is buying in the world in the way of wood products, you'll see that very clearly. On the world market they buy 850 boatloads of wood products per year. Check your port logs to see how many of those boat loads are coming out of the greatest supplier of wood in the world — British Columbia. Practically none, Mr. Member. In fact, the State of Washington in the United States, which is about one-fifth the size of British Columbia, is selling them ten times the amount of wood that British Columbia is. If we want a part of that market — and I'm saying to the minister today that we should be out looking and begging for a part of that market — we've got to sell raw logs. We cannot say to that market: "You have to buy our dimension lumber." Mr. Member, ask your loggers if they care whether the log they're producing goes into a boat and across the sea or they don't work because we can't sell plywood or lumber that's made out of that log. I'm sure you'll find out how they think.

Mr. Chairman, we have got to be flexible. We have got to bend with the world market, and the world market today is for at least a portion of a raw material. We can build an export market in the People's Republic of China, for instance, that would absolutely boggle your mind. But as well as attempting to sell them what we produce as a finished product, we have to sell them some of what they wish, and that's raw materials. We can no longer afford the luxury of the short-sightedness that I hear time after time after time in this chamber. We have an overabundance, and if we want....

Even this afternoon I hear speaker after speaker talking about the replenishment of our forests: more money for seeding, for seedlings, for silviculture. The only way we're going to get more money, Mr. Chairman, is to sell a product on the world market. If we're going to have our fair share of that world market we have got to be flexible enough to sell that world market what it wants to buy, and at this point that includes raw logs.

I'm proud to stand up here and say, as one who has spent over 15 years in the forest industry of this province, that we have got to be flexible with the market. In order to entice that business, we have to sell that buyer some of what he wants to buy — in this case raw logs. I don't think we in this chamber can afford to be as short-sighted as to say that we're exporting jobs by exporting raw logs; that's not the case at all. I see many a logger at this point in our economy all over this province, particularly on the coast and in the riding that that member is sent here by....

[3:30]

I would suggest, as I have suggested in this chamber before, that in this case half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. The key issue here is not the exporting of logs or jobs; the key issue is getting British Columbia a share of that very huge market that's out there right now. They're getting it from other areas of the world. Logs are being exported — rightly so, and proudly so — by our neighbours to the south. Logs in abundance are being exported by the U.S.S.R., which incidentally, if you take a look at a world map, is a whole lot closer to China than we are. Logs are being exported by many of the countries of Africa. Logs are being exported by South America, and more so as those countries develop. So we can't sit idly by and say no, we won't export raw material. We're quite happy to import raw material to make jobs at Kitimat, but we're not willing to sell to our buyers what it is they want, and in doing so entice larger sales in the area of that which we manufacture, such as plywood and dimension lumber.

Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't sit idly in my office and let this go by. We have a marvellous opportunity here to do a little bargaining, to go out to that world market and say to the People's Republic of China: "Yes, we'll sell you some logs. Sure we will. But at the same time you've got to buy some of our plywood, our dimension lumber and pulp." Then and only then will we create those jobs that the members opposite are talking about.

[ Page 4454 ]

MR. SKELLY: I'll be very brief. I always appreciate following the member for Omineca, because he provides a number of speech notes. I'm grateful for the fact that the debate in the House brought the member from his enforced idleness in his office. It's not necessary for a member to be idle when he's in his office; but I appreciate the fact that the debate encouraged him to come into the House, because the devil finds work for idle hands and it's better that the member be in here than outside the House.

Unfortunately he was talking about the export of raw logs and encouraging the export of raw logs from the province. He mentioned that the state of Washington exports and has traditionally exported a tremendous number of logs from that state. I understand that at one time the Ministry of Forests here in British Columbia did a study and found out that if B.C. significantly increased its export of raw logs, and cut into some of the markets being exploited by the state of Washington and the loggers down there, they might turn around and begin to sell into their domestic market and in fact cut into some of the domestic market for finished lumber that we enjoy in the United States. I'm a bit concerned about that, and I wonder if that is a concern of the minister. Or has he done any studies on that? It appears that the Pacific Northwest loggers, after having failed in their bid to impose punitive duties on the B.C. forest industry, have now taken it upon themselves to further develop and expand their markets within the United States and to take up a part of our market share that we previously enjoyed in the United States. I'm wondering if this is a reaction to what has happened as a result of our increasing export of raw logs from the province of British Columbia, if we are competing with their markets, and if, in fact, we may be risking a great deal more by competing for the sale of raw logs in traditional Washington state markets, so that they are now competing with British Columbia finished forest products within the United States, which could result in further losses to the British Columbia forest industry and economy.

The member mentioned that he had spent 15 years in the forest industry, and the minister claims there has been some improvement since he left. I'm glad to hear that.

The member also mentioned Kitimat and the fact that we bring in raw resources and manufacture aluminum here in British Columbia, and we don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. But the member, of course, neglected the other part of the equation, which is that we add cheap energy to the raw materials we import at Kitimat and we export that energy in the form of unfinished aluminum ingots. To produce that energy has resulted in the loss of thousands upon thousands of acres of productive forest land in the member's own constituency, and if we had had that forest land we might have been much better off at the present time. But unfortunately, those arrangements and agreements were signed a long time before we gave consideration to the costs and benefits of developing a project like the Kemano project and the Alcan project. I would hope that we would give more consideration to the development of the Kemano 2 project, and possibly consider the private member's bill placed on the order paper by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which demands greater value added to aluminium products within British Columbia.

What we're seeking for aluminum in this province, through the member for Skeena's private member's bill, we're also seeking for forest products in British Columbia. We should make every effort possible to stop the export of raw logs and make sure that those logs are processed, that value is added to those logs here in British Columbia and that jobs are created here in British Columbia. That's what this party is demanding in the Legislature, and that's what we would like to see happen. So we do disagree with the member for Omineca on that point, and we hope that the minister isn't persuaded further by his arguments than he currently is.

One thing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) brought up during his debate — one of his few contributions to debate in the Legislature — was that he felt there was insufficient debate on forest issues in the House, and insufficient attention paid to forest issues. One of the problems with that, of course, is that the only opportunity we really get is when legislation comes down or when we're debating the minister's estimates in the House. For many years, under the W.A. C. Bennett government prior to 1972, and also up to 1974 under the NDP government, the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries met in this Legislature, was assigned terms of reference, and assisted in recommending solutions to certain problems that it was assigned in those terms of reference. Members from both sides of the House were able to get together in a problem-solving approach to deal with problems referred to them by the House. Members of the forestry profession, people from the Ministry of Forests and people from the forest industry were also able to provide a measure of education to those MLAs so that they were aware of how the forests were managed, what research was being done and simple thing like how stumpage is calculated in the province so that members were much better informed on forestry issues as a result of the operation of that committee.

Since this government came to office in 1975 and was re-elected in '79 and '83, the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources, which replaced the forestry and fisheries committee, has never met or been assigned terms of reference by this minister. This government has never offered MLAs and the public the opportunity to meet together to discuss in a problem-solving approach the questions that face the forest industry rather than dealing with those questions across the floor in a very political way.

There's only one other thing that I would like to bring up before we get to some of the votes in this ministry's estimates, and that is the issue of research. It was brought up briefly by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday. At that time she talked about the lack of budget being assigned to research by the ministry and the fact that the budget has actually declined over the last several years. Going back to the ministry's annual reports and to the estimates book, in 1981-82 the budget was $8.4 million. In 1982-83 it went up to $9.2 million. In 1983-84 it went back to the same level it was at in 1981-82, and now we're $1 million below what we were in 1981-82, not counting the depredations that inflation have made on the forest research budget in that time and the results of increased costs.

I would like to refer to a recent study done by Roger Hayter of Simon Fraser University. He found that B.C., with 10.6 percent of the total North American timber harvest, accounted for only 2 percent of North American professional research development employment in the area of forestry. I think it is a sad commentary on British Columbia and on the government of British Columbia and on this Minister of Forests that we have such a very low level of forestry research and forest products research done in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 4455 ]

I understand that the federal government has increased its commitment to a small extent in this area, but still the research and development that is done by corporations within this province and by the government in this province is pretty shabby. It's much lower than it should be. As a result, many of our forest companies are paying as licensees to holders of patents outside the country. To give one example in Roger Hayter's study: in 1980 Scott Paper paid $850,000 to its parent company in the United States for research and development services. It's estimated that the total Canadian forest industry may spend as much as $200 million on imported research and development or patented processes that are patented outside the United States. As a result, there is a tremendous outflow of funds from the Canadian forest industry which goes to patents held in the United States. A lot of that research and development may have been done in Canada, but the patents are held in the United States. That generates an outflow of capital that could have been used in the Canadian forest industry for the type of research and development and the type of investigations into silviculture and into product development that we should be doing in this province.

It's unfortunate that the minister has not placed as much emphasis as should be placed on research and development both in the private sector and in the government sector. So the minister has fallen down pretty seriously in our eyes in that area. We're not only dropping down in the amount spent on research and development in his own budget this year over last year, but we're now $1 million less than what we paid for research in 1981-82.

Mr. Chairman, we've spent a number of hours here in the Legislature talking about the administration of the Ministry of Forests and the minister's performance in his post as minister. We're simply not satisfied with the answers that we've received from the minister and not satisfied with the work that has been done in the forests of this province in order to improve the quality of our forests and in order to create additional jobs in the forest.

As a result, I would like to move the following motion; that vote 31 be reduced by $1. The motion is seconded by the member for Atlin.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order, and the Chair appreciates the fact that it is the standard motion.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the reason we are presenting this motion is that we feel that under this minister's direction there has been a declining commitment to intensive silviculture in this province. As a result we are losing ground in terms of replanting and replacing our forests and making sure that we have a viable and thrifty stand of forest in this province that will be available to our generation and also to future generations. We feel that this minister and his government have exhibited a lack of concern for jobs in the forest industry by their failure to stem job losses due to the lack of reforestation and silviculture and also by their agreement to increase export of raw logs and raw resources from the province. We feel that this minister has failed to successfully negotiate a long-term intensive silvicultural agreement with the federal government, which has resulted in delaying that intensive silvicultural program. In fact, we feel that this is part and parcel of the government's conscious plan to delay economic recovery in this province and to further depress the economy so that the government, when 1986 or 1987 rolls around and it's time of the next election, by delaying these investments will be able to show that there is a larger jump in the gross national product and in the productivity of the economy than there would have been had the government not purposefully depressed economic performance in this province. We feel that that's the major reason for delaying this intensive silvicultural program, not the excuses that the minister has given, because other provinces have seen the urgency of this program and have entered into agreements with the federal government to enrich those programs.

We also feel that the minister has failed to encourage diversification of tenures and has failed to encourage greater participation of small business in the forest industry and especially in the logging sector. He has failed to encourage the expansion and diversification of the products that our forests produce in order to expand the number of products to improve our markets and to increase the value added to our forest resources in British Columbia. He has failed to provide additional research and development which would assist us in improving the quality of our forests and also in stimulating research and development in the private sector that would improve the range and value of the products that our forest industry distributes and markets.

We also are concerned about the minister's comments yesterday where he failed to recognize the existence of aboriginal nations in this province, in particular the Nishga nation, and failed to recognize their rights and claims to the resources of this province which are going to have to be negotiated and resolved before we can have any real progress made by those nations in developing their economies and developing their independence within British Columbia's society.

In general we feel that the minister has failed to manage the forests of this province in the interests of the citizens of this province. He has failed to recognize the democratic right of citizens to have an effective role in the decisions made to manage and harvest the forests of this province and the effective participation in the development of policies and allocation of tenures. Most importantly he has failed to recognize the rights of future generations in the forest resources of this province and the obligation of people in this generation to act as good stewards of the resource to maintain the forests of this province in their vigorous and sustainable condition. For this reason the opposition does not have confidence in the minister. We have heard two speakers from the other side of the House who have had the same feelings about the minister's performance in specific areas, and we hope that members of the House will vote their conscience on this motion and call upon the minister and the government to improve their performance in managing the forests of this province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I must speak to the amendment. The first thing I have to say is that after such a terrible confrontation I can no longer support the member for the leadership of the NDP. I'm going to have to take my badge off. No, I'll keep it as a souvenir.

I will respond to some of the comments made by the member very briefly, as we have been over most of this ground, and also to comments made by both the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).

[ Page 4456 ]

We have not yet concluded an agreement of a kind that we would like with the federal government, but we are certainly negotiating toward such an agreement. I think as the case was with the current agreements which we have just extended, when we do conclude an agreement it will be the best in Canada and will be directed toward management of the forests and not toward other activities such as subsidizing industry or simply building roads for industry. Our agreement will be a forest management one and that alone. We are continuing to negotiate and will conclude an agreement. Interestingly enough, today I signed a copy of the final funding agreement with our federal counterpart. They sent out four copies, two in English and two in French. I didn't really understand the French version, but I had my staff look at it very carefully, and amazingly we found errors in the French version which we had to correct before sending it back to the federal government. But that is concluded now, and we'll be getting on with that management work.

We have not been losing ground in forests in replanting; we have been gaining ground each year. We have not gained ground as quickly as we would like to have in other areas of forest management, but we will do that as we can afford it, even though we've had to borrow money this year to carry on those necessary programs of government.

I have not agreed to log exports. I am very much against the export of logs and cannot agree with the member for Omineca that we should be encouraging log exports. Some log exports have gone to China, as they have to other countries this year, not for any specific reason, but the fact is that they have gone though the procedure, which is government policy, and has been for years. It was the government policy, even when that party was government, that no logs be exported unless they are surplus to the needs of the province. As a matter of fact, because of our insistence in doing this, and in continually telling other countries, such as China, that it is not our policy to export logs, British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the world that exports manufactured lumber products to the People's Republic of China. They respect our position and our policy regarding log exports.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talked about the Victoria water board making money with their forest management. Indeed they can. If all the forests in British Columbia were as high a quality log as is that forest and were as close to the market as is that area, then we would be making a much healthier return for the province than we do, because we do have to manage our whole forest. We have to take the low-quality logs as well. Victoria Plywood did not close because of log costs; they closed because of markets and increasing general cost of producing plywood. Strangely enough, Hershell Smith of Sooke Forest Products has never really pursued a supply of logs with the government. As a matter of fact, you will recall that a few years ago 50 percent of Sooke Forest Products was owned by the Hershell Smith family, and the other 50 percent was owned by Pacific Forest Products. Negotiations were underway with Pacific Forest Products and the Smith family for Pacific Forest Products to buy out the Smith half because they did have a log supply. At the last moment, however, the tables were turned, and Hershell Smith and his family and partners bought out Sooke Forest Products. They do not have a log supply and have not pursued one, and in my discussions with him Hershell Smith seems to think he is better off having it that way, because he can see how much money many people are losing on the logging part of the total timber manufacturing process.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Scotsman is babbling something I don't understand. I wish he would go back to his squash game.

I think I've covered most of those points, Mr. Chairman. I can't support the motion. I need the money. I can't afford to take that reduction in pay, so I'll be voting against the motion.

[4:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 31

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

Vote 31 approved.

Vote 32: forest and range management, $206,096,703 — approved.

Vote 33: fire suppression program, $46,000,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: This is indeed a serious piece of legislation. I wish to discuss this bill in some depth and mention some of the concerns that I have. I'm sure many of the points have already been mentioned by our side of the House, but I think they should be said again and again.

[ Page 4457 ]

In the province of British Columbia there is grave concern among many people of many political persuasions that we are stepping back to the good old dark days, as the Socreds might think, in terms of human rights. At a time in the world when there are so many atrocities in other parts of the world in terms of human rights and human dignity, the preservation of what we consider to be a just and civilized society in the world.... When we read daily in our newspapers of what's happening in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Poland and the Soviet Union, the non-existence of human rights there, we in the free western democratic world have a responsibility to establish models of human rights legislation. We should be the guiding lights. Our legislation, even in British Columbia, should be second to none in preserving human rights and human dignity and the rights of minorities. In these troubled times in the world, where millions of people are being persecuted for various reasons, we should not be endorsing that by weakening our Human Rights Code and introducing a piece of legislation that really is, I think, an insult to the majority of British Columbians. We in this Legislature should be saying unanimously that we want a piece of legislation that we can all be proud of — all British Columbians of all political persuasion or racial descent or ethnic background, whether you're disabled physically or mentally.

In my estimation and in the estimation of our party and of thousands of British Columbians, this legislation is not adequate. The minister has had the opportunity in the last few weeks to reflect and think about this course of action, to take a look at this legislation and listen not just to the well-known human rights groups but to groups that don't always express themselves the loudest, like church organizations, individuals and ordinary citizens, who have, I'm sure, said to many MLAs in this House, since the reintroduction of human rights legislation for the province of British Columbia, that we can do better than that piece of legislation.

All of us.... I guess I happen to be one of the lucky ones in British Columbian or Canadian society. Like the majority of us in this House, I'm white, come from the right background and don't have any particular automatic marks of being disabled. Most of us have never undergone any kind of overt or insidious discrimination, or any discrimination. I have to say quite candidly that over the last few years I have had to take a look at some of my positions, because very often it's difficult. Because of the way we're brought up and the stereotypes of what's considered normal in society, which we take for granted, we think it's okay. That's why we need the toughest legislation possible in British Columbia: because often we don't recognize discrimination or violation of human rights. If every one of us were to look at ourselves, we all, somewhere along the line, have violated some fundamental human rights in some of our attitudes.

It's an ongoing task to ensure that those who are not able to protect themselves, or those who belong to a minority group, or those who belong to a group that is not necessarily accepted by the majority, for whatever reason, are protected. So often we make up our minds about groups or individuals based on prejudices, upbringing, what we've learned in school or in various books that have intuitively put into our minds notions of discrimination. We've always got to be aware of that. We've always got to be strengthening our respect for human rights.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I am really disappointed that that member over there, who happens to be a minority in the province of British Columbia, has the audacity to sit and defend this piece of legislation. You really should have the guts and the determination to speak up against your party and this filthy piece of legislation, Mr. Member. You should have the determination. You know what this piece of legislation is. It is a law to discriminate.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: How can you defend this?

MR. MOWAT: With no problems at all.

MR. BLENCOE: You're going to have problems, Mr. Member.

The minister has had ample opportunity to review this important basic human issue in the province of British Columbia. He set up an advisory group of highly regarded people who were prepared to consult with this government and offer suggestions, and bring in alternatives. Yet we know that the ink was hardly dry on that report, and obviously the legislation had been drawn up with no intent to listen to that advisory group.

What's happening in British Columbia is very worrying in terms of this government's so-called superficial belief in consulting various interest groups and concerned groups. Over and over we have seen that they give this impression of consulting and concern, yet by their own actions and their haste to introduce legislation, they can't even see and study the report before the legislation is written and before us. In this particular aspect, the consultation process was a hoax and a cruel joke to those thousands of British Columbians who had hoped for more in terms of human rights legislation in British Columbia.

Bill 11 removes protection against discrimination without reasonable cause. The effect is to remove protection against discrimination on grounds such as age, sexual orientation, language ability and any other ground not explicitly named. Mr. Speaker, that is a weakening of one of the most basic and fundamental principles we have accepted in a civilized, progressive and democratic society.

[4:15]

During these troubled times in the world, and with what you see happening in other jurisdictions, we have a responsibility to show the way, to show that we believe in the toughest human rights legislation and the protection of every single British Columbian and their rights under law, and of their ability to have their case heard before an impartial organization or tribunal or human rights commission, not this council that the minister has set up — or will set up. We've already seen in the Residential Tenancy Act the partial kind of arbitration system that is going to be set up in the tenancy situation, with appointments by the minister. We had a commission which was independent of government and at arm's length from government interference. We're now going to have this quasi-political council that may indeed hear cases — or may not hear cases, if it deems them to be frivolous or vexatious. or not appropriate or not in good faith. This bill is not fitting in terms of the needs of 1984. British Columbians, I believe, deserve better and want more.

An interesting story came out of Vancouver very recently. It appeared in the Times-Colonist on April 19, 1984. I think

[ Page 4458 ]

it's an indication that unless we have tough human rights legislation and protection, and a quick system to have the consequences of discrimination taken care of by an impartial organization, this kind of story will become the norm.

"A local black secondary school student who was told by his principal not to get within three feet of any white girl is an example of the type of racial problems which exist in today's school system, a workshop at the national conference of principals and vice-principals was told Wednesday. Dick Durante, a high school principal, said that a working committee on race relations set up by the Vancouver School Board was told by the black student that, following the principal's instructions, he 'walked around the school grounds with a yardstick in front of him.'"

"Don't get within three feet of a white girl" was the principal's instruction to this black student in Vancouver.

This is the kind of thing....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did they fire the principal?

MR. BLENCOE: There's no followup story to this, Mr. Minister, but you may wish to take a look at this. I am saying that this sort of thing cannot be even thought of as being endorsed.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The member asks if the law is going to change attitudes. It is the responsibility of government to express what they believe should be the ultimate in rights and against discrimination. Are you saying that you are going to pander to the most base common denominators and attitudes? That's where this government is at, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOWAT: You can't legislate away attitudes.

MR. BLENCOE: No, but you can set principles and ideals, what you believe in, Mr. Member; that's what you should be setting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: We have a responsibility to set the ideal and to talk about the principle. I agree that we can't change attitudes. But does that mean we have to succumb to some of the worst attitudes that exist in British Columbia? Do we have to succumb to those who believe that a black student shouldn't talk with, or go out with or be seen with a white student? That attitude may prevail with a lot of people. I know that in my own constituency there are attitudes towards the Indo-Canadian community. Those attitudes may exist, but we as legislators have a responsibility to say we don't approve, and there have to be tough consequences in law for those particular attitudes.

Under this piece of legislation you will have to prove intent to discriminate. You ask any person in the legal profession: to prove intent is extremely difficult. By removing the "reasonable cause" section, this government is clearly pandering to those who want to continue the attitudes that you say prevail, Mr. Member. But you want to legalize those attitudes, you want to continue those attitudes and you don't want to speak up against those attitudes. This Legislature should be doing more than that.

Discriminatory advertisements and application forms are another issue of this particular bill. Bill 11 restores the prohibition against discriminatory advertisements, but there is no section like that in the existing code which deals with discriminatory application forms. Therefore an applicant could be required to furnish information about matters such as race, religion and political belief. We all thought we had got away from those kinds of questions. What's your political belief? What's your religion? What's your marital status? Those have got nothing to do with your ability to attain employment. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation will allow those kinds of questions to be asked again.

I've already talked about the Human Rights Commission and the human rights branch being replaced by this new council. My major concern with that, of course, is that it's not objective, it's not impartial, and our understanding is that the staffing of this particular council is very dubious. We're not quite sure exactly how it's going to be done. The minister has said that the council will rely on staff from other parts of the ministry. I suspect, Mr. Minister, that all this council will be is a front for this piece of legislation that calls itself human rights legislation. It will be nothing more — or nothing less.

British Columbia is entitled to a better piece of legislation than this. Complaints of violations will be filed with the council, which will be in charge of investigating them and deciding whether they should proceed. Complaints must be filed by the person discriminated against or by someone else on behalf of that person, with that person's consent. For example, a member of the public who witnesses a violation apparently cannot file a complaint without finding and obtaining the consent of the victim of the discrimination.

As I have already mentioned, but I think it's very important, the council can dismiss a complaint before any investigation if it is deemed frivolous, vexatious, in bad faith or more appropriately dealt with under another act. The council can choose to appoint one of its members to conduct a hearing or can refer a case to the minister, who can decide whether or not to appoint a board of inquiry. The power of the council to conduct its own hearings is new and is not contained in the existing code or in Bill 27, which we had before. The effect is that the same agency will sometimes be both the investigator and the judge of the case. Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate and should be immediately amended and changed. You cannot be the investigator and the judge of a case. They need to be separate jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, many groups have asked the government to reconsider this piece of legislation. I think it would be useful for the minister and his cabinet colleagues to take up that particular call. There are still many organizations that are prepared to be very reasonable and to try to discuss what the intent of this government is. They're not quite sure why this legislation is as weak as it is. If the accusation is to accommodate the attitude of the member from Little Mountain — that we must accommodate the common attitudes that prevail — then we've got some trouble.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You made a statement, Mr. Member, that you are going to regret seeing in Hansard.

[ Page 4459 ]

Many organizations in British Columbia continue to express their deep-seated concern that the legislation before us is not adequate.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Say something!

MR. BLENCOE: What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say that it's a good piece of legislation? Would that make you feel better? You could look in the mirror tonight and feel better about it, Madam Member? Is that what you want? Well, I'm not going to accommodate your desires at all.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Any respect for them, Mr. Member? They have no time for your bill, and you know it.

MR. MOWAT: Name one.

MR. BLENCOE: I've already named one. How about the B.C. Human Rights Coalition?

MR. REYNOLDS: Solidarity.

MR. BLENCOE: Sure, how about Solidarity? How about the church organizations — the Catholic church and the United church and those concerned clergymen? Would 100 people, 200 people, 1,000 organizations make you change your minds? Is it numbers that are going to tell the tale of whether human rights in British Columbia are going to be protected? Is that what it's all about? Is that what this government is concerned about — how many people believe in human rights? That's where we're at with this government. It all depends on what the polls are going to tell them. You're not going to stand up for what happens to be decent and right and honourable and just, because there may be other attitudes that do not entirely endorse proper and decent human rights in the province of British Columbia.

We have a responsibility to stand up even when it's not particularly popular. We have a responsibility as legislators to say that we believe in establishing strong human rights. It may not be popular. I believe this government has not given serious consideration to this piece of legislation, particularly the elimination of "reasonable cause" and all that that entails. I think there is need for further consultation and advice from those who are particularly interested in this legislation.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would urge the government to once again think clearly about its responsibility not only to British Columbians but also its responsibility as a democratic institution. In Canada today we have a Charter of Rights that guarantees every individual equality under the law — the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, or colour. We believe that the piece of legislation before us opposes and violates some of the fundamental aspects of that charter.

In the interest of giving this government another opportunity to reconsider its course of action, another opportunity to take a serious look at what it's doing, and for each Socred MLA to look at this piece of legislation and say that in British Columbia we indeed could and should take the opportunity to write the finest piece of legislation in North America that we can, because this doesn't do it.... In that interest, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion: that the motion for reading of Bill 11, entitled Human Rights Act, be amended by deleting the words following "that" and adding the words "six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I think when we're looking at the motion, and the issue on human rights that is in front of us, I'd like to use three words: "consider, " "reconsider" and "considerate." There was once a Greek philosopher who said: "We live now in a sick society, " and in context with the problems that we associate with ancient Greece, I doubt if we could really imply that our present day society is a sick one, even though there are problems in the way we treat one another, and in the way we are considerate to each other. If we extend that to some things that were discussed earlier today and yesterday, in our society we have grown accustomed to we put up with certain things — for instance, magazines. We've seen some problems in society with the distribution of magazines which deal with children. We also hear at times in this Legislature some of the comments that come across this floor regarding nationality. I'd like to discuss nationality and some human rights problems that we have in this province.

I was born in the United States. My grandparents were Canadian, and I came to Canada when I was young. One of the reasons that I came to Canada and decided that I wanted to become a Canadian was some of the problems that I had seen in the community that I grew up in, which was Detroit. Detroit has had a label on it for years as the murder capital of the United States. I didn't grow up in the suburbs; to a certain extent I grew up in the city. In my daily associations in school and with friends, I had seen the problems of human rights and racism in Detroit. I remember the one time when I probably made the final decision — even though I was attending university at the time and had gone home for the summer. I was coming back from a baseball game — I'd gone down to see the Tigers — and I saw buildings on fire. It was a Sunday. It turned out to be the largest race riot in the history of the United States in Detroit in 1967.

When it came to human rights violations.... It wasn't just what I had seen on television or heard on the radio; it was something that I saw first hand, particularly when the 101st Airborne Division were flown in to Detroit to help quell the race riot that was in progress. There were more individuals killed in that race riot than in any other riot in the history of the United States. It had a devastating effect on me to see citizens, if they were in the armed forces or were just citizens who lived in the community, going out and killing each other. I was too young for the Second World War, but I think anybody in this Legislature who ever experienced serving in the armed forces must know the feeling when it comes to the loss of human life in a military situation, and I don't think any of us would ever want to experience that again for our children or grandchildren, or even for ourselves. What I saw and experienced in Detroit is something that I hope no one would ever have to experience first hand.

[ Page 4460 ]

Psychologists who deal in this area often mention a recurring topic when it comes to human rights violations, and that's fear. It's the fear of the individual or the fear of something. It's a manifest idea that is almost like a cancer that grows in individuals, the fear of something. I think we are all considerate in this Legislature, and if we look at what fear can do to individuals we will understand that it is a cancer. Fear probably has caused more human rights violations than any other thing. Sometimes we allow fear to manifest itself in ourselves, and we look at individuals and are fearful of skin colour, disability, or nationality.

When my father came over to North America he had to change his name. It used to be Passarelli. He had to change it to Passarell — drop off the "i" — because he found that he could move more freely in employment opportunities by not being associated as an Italian. Passarell sounds a little more cosmopolitan or whatever the case is. He had to drop that "i" because of discrimination he was finding in his own self. He had to change his name. Why? Because he was Italian? Because he was born in Italy and immigrated to North America?

I don't think anyone in this Legislature — the opposition or the government — is going to accuse across this floor or in public engagements that the Social Credit government is synonymous with human rights discrimination. I'm not doing it as a personal statement. That's why I'm taking my place on this floor. I'm not saying that you people are bad. I think you have a concern and a feeling, and that's why I talked to you earlier, Mr. Minister of Labour, about those three words, "consider, " "reconsider" and "considerate" in coming in with this hoist motion.

As my friend from Victoria mentioned earlier when he was talking about human rights violations, it's the fear that we see on television nightly, in whatever part of the world. In Central America, Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, the Philippines — you can go on and on and on — we see real human rights violations happening, in which individuals are taken out and killed, mutilated, put into prisons. I doubt if that's ever going to happen here in British Columbia. I don't think it could ever happen. We're not a country, we're a province, and there are federal laws that protect the individual from that kind of repressive government. I doubt that this government could be used in the same kind of synopsis that they're a repressive government such as Chile or some of the countries in Central America where there are human rights violations. I think we get lost in that aspect. But it comes back to that recurring theme of fear again. If as lawmakers we allow that fear to generate from our debates and from our discussions in this Legislature, to filter back that there is some kind of fear from this legislation, then maybe people make the synopsis that it is similar. I doubt that. I think our role as lawmakers is to stop that type of fear from filtering out into society through this legislation. That's why the hoist motion, and that's why I asked if I could speak right after the hoist motion. I think it's important that we reconsider what we're doing today.

I've looked at the legislation; I've read it through. There are some problems with it, and there are some good aspects to it. I don't think anything is ever 100 percent wrong or right. If it was that way there would be only one political party in this country or in this province. Why would we need oppositions or two or three political parties if everything was right or everything was wrong? I read an article a few months ago about technological change in the country, saying that it is possible that politicians could be extinct by the year 2000 — that computers might just as well do the job that we're doing today. You could put a computer on this side and you could put a computer on that side and program it so that whatever that side said or this side said you would just say the opposite — have a flashing board up there and if that computer came out and said, "Bill 11 is right, " you would push the button on this side and it would say: "Opposed." That would cover all the issues. That's not what we're talking about.

The opposition has brought forward the six-month hoist motion for us to reconsider exactly how we're moving in this direction of human rights in this province, to give us time to see if this is the best piece of legislation that we could be bringing forward as lawmakers in this province. The aspect that all of us have to grasp, and an aspect that I grasped by leaving Detroit when I saw the human rights violations happening in 1967 and prior to that too.... It is to give us time to reconsider so that fear does not go out into society from here with our proposed human rights legislation. It's a task that we're all faced with.

[4:45]

Instead of just giving blanket approval or opposition to what we're faced with here with this legislation, maybe we should reconsider. Sometimes in this House we have House committees. Sometimes we just exchange ideas by standing out in the hallway. Most of the time what happens is that we exchange ideas across the floor of the Legislature. Why the opposition is moving this hoist is to allow — I don't think you ever give without taking something in return — the government six months to reconsider this legislation.

I talked earlier about my firsthand experiences with human rights violations in the city of Detroit. My hon. friend from Victoria spoke of a global discussion. Let's look at human rights violations in this province. I doubt if you can go anywhere in this province today and be told, as was my hon. friend, that you are denied access to a restaurant or a public building because you're disabled. We no longer have that type of law in our province. I remember that at one time, before I went bald, I was denied entrance to restaurants and to some public buildings because of the length of my hair. I think that has been cleaned up a little bit. I think the perfect example, and the first that we should be discussing today, when it comes to our province — not what's happening in Central America or in the Soviet Union, but in our province — is the first citizens, the native people.

I had the honour of attending the Nishga convention last week in Kincolith, attended by delegates from the first citizens from across this country. Kincolith is an interesting place. It's very isolated; there are no roads into Kincolith. To get to Kincolith, you charter an aircraft or take a fishing boat from Prince Rupert. Over the four days, the delegates and the guest speakers who attended the meeting.... We spent a lot of time just talking. There are only 150 people who live in Kincolith. There are no hotels or bars. There's just a small store. We were able to talk a little bit. I had the opportunity, for the first time ever, to sit down and talk with Frank Calder. We spent two and a half hours discussing things. Frank represented the Atlin constituency for 26 years. He was the first native person ever elected in Canada.

In a sense I gained some inner strength from talking with Frank. I hope not so much inner strength that he wants to run again, but it was a nice discussion. In our exchange some things came to light when we were talking about human rights violations in this province. It's something that Frank himself found when he was first elected in 1949. It was the

[ Page 4461 ]

first year that native people were allowed to vote. He became an MLA for the Atlin constituency in that year.

While Frank and I were talking.... There were a number of chiefs from the different nations who were attending the conference who were talking to us. I was listening to a chief from one of the nations on Vancouver Island who was talking about how the potlatch was denied to native people for many years. It was ruled illegal for first nations to hold a potlatch in their own communities, in their own homes. Government had imposed itself upon residents of this province by taking human rights away from them by special laws. We discussed for a long time the concept of the potlatch — the social as well as the religious concept, and how it fitted into what we were discussing when we talked about human rights. It's kind of an odd term, when we look at the concept of human rights. It's like when we talk about humane traps. What's more basic than rights for humans? If humans don't have rights, who does?

We were talking further about some of the problems the first citizens have had from 1967 to the present. Sweathouses was another issue that came up, and the religious aspect of how first citizens of this province were denied sweathouse access. A magazine article came out this month.... A prison in Ontario was the first in Canada to allow native Canadian inmates access to sweathouses for religious purposes. It was just this year, even though that's been part of the culture for thousands of years, from time immemorial. Only now are individuals who are incarcerated for their lifetimes, for instance, given the right of going to a sweathouse. That's the first time, and that's in a prison in Ontario. When is it going to happen here in British Columbia, or in the other eight or nine provinces? I could dwell on the issue of human rights for native people for many days, probably, but sometimes, as Mark Twain used to say, it's not how long you talk but what you're going to say.

I'd like to go to one more issue, an issue that has been recurring and has gained a lot of popular discussion in the last few months: the Canadian-Japanese issue, looked at in terms of human rights in this province. It looks as though the federal government is going to reconsider some of the things that went on in 1939 and 1941, at the beginning of the war, some of the associated problems for Canadians in this province who had a Japanese heritage, and some of the human rights violations that existed with these Canadian Japanese — individuals who were born in this country.

I just want to go back to those three words, "consider, " "reconsider" and "considerate, " and try to apply that. We have brought forward this hoist motion for six months to allow the government to reconsider the proposed legislation in front of us, and to be considerate when we're talking about human rights violations. I think that the government has the mandate of the people; they've been given their confidence and their trust. Although we might sit on opposite sides of the floor, we still share the same feelings when it comes to the rights of our residents. It could be bad; it could be wrong. I've looked at the legislation personally; I don't think it's totally bad. I think the Minister of Labour understands that. By the same token, it's probably not 100 percent right. Let's allow this hoist motion to proceed, to reconsider. We say six months hence. It doesn't have to be six months; it could be a few days. But let's get some exchange going on. If the exchange across the floor here seems fruitless and there are no new ideas coming forward, then fine, we should agree unanimously on the issue. If there are some disagreements across this floor, let's have the vote on it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Never, never.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, the Minister of Environment speaks from his chair and says: "Never, never." Maybe it's time that we started talking that way. It's a shame that....

You seem to be pretty considerate here today, with only nine members in the House — or am I supposed to say 11?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, rightly or wrongly, it's still a shame that when we're discussing things in this House we have nine or ten people in this House constantly, and not always the same individuals. I think all of us can be faulted for the time that we spend in the Legislature.

Let's reconsider exactly what's in front of us in this human rights legislation. If it's wrong, let's reconsider it and approve the hoist. If it's right, and there's no purposeful debate going back and forth, then let's vote on it for the benefit of the people of this province.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to speak in support of the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, because I think that something as important as human rights legislation, which affects everybody — there really isn't any single person in a nation who is not affected in one way or another by human rights legislation — shouldn't be amended or changed or deleted or tampered with in any way without a lot of research, investigation and consultation as to the impact of the legislation on various groups in our society. I think that what the six months will do is give the minister an opportunity to go back and maybe look at some of the earlier pieces of human rights legislation that we have in this province.

I'm not participating in this debate as a means of indulging myself in some kind of academic dissertation or dialogue. When I speak on human rights, I have a vested interest in it because I belong to two minority groups — maybe three, if you count the fact that I came to this country as an immigrant 34 years ago, but definitely at least two visible minority groups. I have had to live under human rights legislation for as long as I can remember. Certainly the first experience I had with human rights legislation in this province had to do with the original bill which was introduced in 1969. The thing that bothers me about this particular piece of legislation — Bill 11, which we are debating today — is that in so many ways this bill is taking us back to pre-1969. Some of the sections, words and protections which existed in the 1969 legislation is actually going to be lost when Bill 11 becomes law. I think that the minister.... I don't know whether he still has a copy of that bill or not. If he doesn't, I would certainly be happy to let him have my copy of the original bill, as well as the brochure, Mr. Speaker, which the Social Credit government published at the time they introduced that original piece of legislation in 1969.

In a lot of ways, the 1969 act influenced the decision made by my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) — certainly it influenced me — in terms of our decision to run for elected office. At the time we were both members of the B.C. Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. Part of our chores and responsibilities as

[ Page 4462 ]

members of that association was to explore the whole question of discrimination in housing, employment, getting mortgages and loans, and all the areas of discrimination which imprisoned people who were black and living in this province at that time. We came to know that bill very intimately. We knew its shortcomings. Certainly we knew the kinds of changes that had to be introduced if that bill was to in any way offer any kind of protection to women, ethnic and racial minorities, disabled people, senior citizens, the young and to every other group, including working people, in this province.

[5:00]

What the original act did was to withhold, for example, protection in terms of securing rental accommodation or purchasing accommodation. It deprived women of any protection in that area. There actually did exist at that time a rule by mortgage companies and the banks by which they would refuse to give a mortgage to a woman, married or single, unless that mortgage was co-signed by a male. There were even ludicrous experiences such as adult women having to have their mortgages or their loans co-signed by their sons, even though the woman would be the major wage-earner in that particular family. There even existed the freedom for landlords to refuse to rent accommodation to single parents if that single parent was a woman. There were refusals to sell houses to single women, to married women on their own or to single women who were parents. There were actually instances in this province where professional women making incomes higher than many men — I'm thinking of someone like Pauline Hewett, for example, who had that experience — not being able to secure a mortgage unless it was co-signed by a male — any male, as long as that male was over the age of 18. It didn't matter what kind of job he had. The human rights act of 1969 had absolutely nothing in it which would prohibit or forbid that kind of discrimination. Here we are in 1984 with Bill 11 wiping out a section that says reasonable cause would have to be given before a refusal could be exercised. It places women in exactly the same position we were in in 1969.

The act also did not protect anyone, male or female, from being fired because the person who employed them did not approve of their political beliefs. It did not protect women from not being employed in the role of housekeepers because a prospective employer did not like the person's race or religion. The act offered almost no protection whatsoever for anyone who worked for the government, because the government very carefully indicated that the act would not apply to them. It didn't apply to the civil service at all.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Discrimination in housing, Mr. Speaker, was not protected against on grounds of sexual orientation. That's the same thing today. An owner could refuse to sell his house to a woman because she was divorced and he didn't approve of divorced women. There was no prohibition against discrimination, except on commercial premises. In a rooming-house situation you could discriminate against people because they were immigrants, because you didn't like the language they spoke, or you didn't like their race.

Even further than that, the act mirrored this present bill in terms of its design. All the appointments were being made by the minister responsible. Of course, having very few rights, because the director could only deal with things that....

He decided whether something would be referred to the commission or not and had the right to decide whether a complaint was frivolous or whether it was non-essential, as the case might be. And there was no appeal against that decision.

As a direct result of this act which was so inadequate, the member for Vancouver Centre and I — certainly that has been my experience.... When we were elected in 1972, part of the mandate which we brought into this Legislature with us was to amend that 1969 Human Rights Code and to expand the area of its protective powers. And so Bill 100 was introduced in 1973 — not perfect, not at all adequate. But certainly what the member for Vancouver Centre and I brought to the drafting of that legislation was an additional dimension, an additional perspective through our eyes, as two members of a visible minority group.

In addition, I brought the perspective of a minority group which in its actual numbers makes up 51 percent of the population at large but which, on the floor of this Legislature, is never more than 10 percent — and that is women. They're never more than 10 percent of the decision-making body which sits on the floor of this House. So often our agenda and our perception is not taken into account when legislation is being drafted. Hence the whole concept of discrimination based on marital status and discrimination based on sex that was included and expanded under Bill 100.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it was not a perfect piece of legislation. I tried and I failed, for example, to have the bill extended to cover farmworkers and domestics, two very important groups who were not protected by our labour legislation at the time and who certainly were being victimized in the workforce by their employers. And of course, because most of the domestics at that time were immigrants as well as members of racial and ethnic minorities, they suffered a triple discrimination. But they were not covered by this bill.

So there isn't any question that the original human rights legislation needed to be amended. And I recognized that any succeeding Minister of Labour would reopen the Code, but would reopen it, I hoped, in a way to expand its protective cloak, not shrink it; to include more people, not fewer. The disabled, for example, were not covered by the Code at that time. The Code needed to be opened to include that group. No question about it.

Then, of course, the bill was amended, and the first thing that happened when Bill 27 was introduced — another amendment of the Human Rights Code — was that we found that we were beginning to lose ground. Instead of the educational role of the bill being expanded, instead of the number of groups protected by the Code being increased, we began to see a shrinking. We began to see the introduction of words like "frivolous." Frivolous really depends on whose ox is being gored. It's easy for me, for example, to stand here and say that someone who doesn't like of a perogy house to be called Hunky Bill's or whatever it is.... Maybe that's frivolous. But certainly to a large percentage of the Ukrainian community that was not frivolous.

I can remember the battle that we waged — the member for Vancouver Centre and I, when we were members of the B.C. Association for the Advancement of Coloured People — about the sign that Sambo's Restaurant used to have on Kingsway, which depicted a caricature of a black child. A lot of people thought that was frivolous. They thought: "That's silly." They thought it was funny. It was just a joke. But it wasn't amusing to our children, to their self-image and their

[ Page 4463 ]

self-esteem; and it wasn't amusing to us, and it wasn't frivolous to us. So having a Code which has a person nominated or elected or appointed by the minister to sit in judgment on what is frivolous, and what is not frivolous, is really imposing that person's sense of what is important on other groups. There are always going to be discrepancies about that.

I know that the minister, for example, went on The Journal on TV and made a big speech about the fact that some women who filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission about not being able to use the golf course on certain days were frivolous. He thought that that was nonsense — the fact that they ran into discrimination in terms of their right to use a public facility at a time which was most convenient for them. He thought that was frivolous because, after all, men work, right, and women don't. So if men wanted to have the course all to themselves on Saturday or Sunday, as the case may be, that was important. That women should want to use the course on the same day — that was frivolous. He made a big issue about how frivolous this was and about how the Human Rights Commission shouldn't be dealing with that kind of thing.

The reality of the situation is, if you look at the statistics and as the Minister of Labour, he knows — that there are more and more women entering the labour force every day at a faster rate even than men, and that being able to use a public facility.... Their time is often curtailed in the same way that the time that men can use it is curtailed. So the right to decide what is frivolous and what isn't.... Even though he articulated it, the reality of the situation is that his colleague, the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who was then the Minister of Labour and responsible for the Code, was the minister who referred that issue to the Human Rights Commission, because that minister did not see that matter as being frivolous at the time.

This present minister sees it as being frivolous. Maybe he sees the whole issue of exercising and keeping yourself in good shape and in good health as frivolous. Maybe the whole idea of playing golf or jogging or being healthy or eating a nutritious meal.... Maybe he sees all of that as frivolous. That's his perception anyway, but it certainly wasn't the perception of his colleague, the now Minister of Education who was then the Minister of Labour and who was the person who referred that complaint to the board of review.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he was, and he's never denied that. He's never denied it, because he was the person who did it. It wasn't the director who did it. She's the one who was scapegoated by the present minister, but she wasn't the one who made the referral. It was the previous Minister of Labour, the now Minister of Education, who did so.

That's the kind of thing that the minister needs to take a second look at.

[5:15]

He made a statement about meeting with groups and involving himself in the consultative process. He was going to consult with the Human Rights Council and various human rights groups in British Columbia prior to introducing any amendments. That was a commitment he made when Bill 27 was allowed to die during the last session of the Legislature. But the groups have stated that there is no indication in Bill 11 that he heard anything that they were saying to them. He didn't hear; he wasn't listening. In fact what we have are the women's groups, which pointed out the importance of protection from sexual harassment under the Code — there's nothing there. Protection in terms of their jobs not being taken away from them in the event of pregnancy is not covered by the Code, even though these issues were raised, not just by this group in consulting with the minister, but by the previous Human Rights Commission, which existed under the previous minister when Mrs. Strongitharm was the chairperson of that group and travelled around the province having hearings. In her report these issues were covered, but there's no sign in this bill that the minister heard a word about that.

There is still no protection for people based on their political beliefs. The age discrimination is still not there. In 1969 you were protected between the ages of 45 and 65. We didn't change it in 1972, and we should have. When the bill was amended last year it was still there, and it's been amended this year and it's still there. Discrimination based on age is now permitted.

The impact of eliminating the section dealing with reasonable cause needs to be studied, because all of the community groups and all of the affected groups tell us that that weakens their protection under this act. To say it is okay to discriminate against a person without having to prove that there is reasonable cause for it weakens the protection which the act gives to these groups, and they said that to the minister prior to the new act being designed and introduced. Yet we find, Mr. Speaker, that that section dealing with reasonable cause has not been changed. When we get to debate the bill section by Section it certainly is the intention of this side of the House to deal with that in more detail and to introduce an amendment, if the minister has not at that time done so.

Just in the event that the minister is thinking of introducing some amendments, I want to make a couple of suggestions, and I suggest that he take my suggestions seriously over the six months during which he is taking the opportunity, as my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) suggested, to reconsider this bill. The definition of age should be extended to read "18 and over." People between the ages of 18 and 45 need to be protected too. It's not just 45 to 65. It should certainly include the age of 18, which is the age at which, by law, in a number of different areas, we accept that adulthood begins. It would make the act more relevant and do a better job.

I want to suggest a couple of new definitions. I want to suggest that the definition of a family composition be included. I don't know whether my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), will be speaking or not, Mr. Speaker, but certainly during the time when I was the Human Resources critic, and before that during the time when I worked as a social worker in this province, I found that in securing rental accommodation often families were discriminated against unless they were the traditional family composed of one husband, one wife and one or more children. Single-parent families or a composition of family composed of say just the children, if they were adult enough, ran into problems because they were not the traditional family. Whatever the ramifications in this day and age when families blend and change and take on different shapes and forms, I think that family composition is something that should be looked at over the six-month period. Certainly a landlord should not be permitted to discriminate in terms of renting accommodation to a single-parent family simply because that family does not have two parents. I realize that part of the

[ Page 4464 ]

problem at the same time is that because so many of the single-parent families are in receipt of welfare, they are also the families who are running into this matter of discrimination. The source of income has to be taken into account too. A landlord should not be permitted to say "I will not rent to a welfare family or a family that is in receipt of income assistance" unless that landlord or landlady can show reasonable cause why the accommodation should not be rented to that particular family.

Also the definition of "sex" should be very clearly stated to include conditions of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illnesses. It should also consider that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. That has to be spelled out in the act. I think that the Human Rights Code always has to be dynamic and flexible. Forms of discrimination change, but the court always has to be flexible enough and fluid enough to be able to accommodate itself to whatever form of discrimination comes along.

Physical or mental condition is another thing that needs to be taken into account in terms of the various sections of the Code. I would like to suggest that the provisions dealing with "reasonable cause" be reintroduced into this bill. By removing the reasonable cause provision, the act has eliminated all protection to certain groups. Certainly it has eliminated protection to those groups under the age of 45. It has eliminated protection to those groups for whom English is a second language. It eliminated protection to those groups who belong to racial or ethnic minorities, to groups who are of a different sexual orientation. Certainly the protections dealing with pregnancy or sexual harassment are not taken into account when the reasonable cause provision is removed.

One of the explanations that the previous Human Rights Commission gave in not spelling out discrimination in these various areas was that in fact "reasonable cause" covered a multitude of things which were not dealt with in detail. That's the reason why "reasonable cause" was put in the act. That was the explanation that used to be given when someone said: "I cannot file a complaint based on the grounds that I'm being discriminated against because I do not speak English as my first language." That person would be told by the Human Rights Commission: "Yes, you can. You can file a complaint under the reasonable cause provision because the person doing the hiring — your employer — has to prove that English as a first language is absolutely essential to this job, and the failure of the employer to prove that means that you have a bona fide case of discrimination, and you can lay your complaint.

By removing the reasonable cause provision, access to the Code has been removed from a large group in the community. It certainly doesn't cover people whose political or religious biases are not the same as that of an employer or landlord or landlady or someone who is selling a home and refusing to sell it to a person because they do not like either their politics or their religion as the case may be.

The other thing that the act does, which is really strange and which I hope the minister is going to use the six-month hoist to look at, is this business of permitting discrimination on the grounds of sex or physical or mental disability with respect to premiums or benefits on the contracts of insurance. One problem women have always had to deal with is that we're never treated equally in terms of insurance. We've always been told that because women live longer their insurance has to be less. There's X number of dollars and it has to be spread over a longer number of years; therefore the insurance that they draw is lower. The actuarial tables use an average, so we're penalized because we take good care of our health, eat properly, keep ourselves in good physical condition and live longer. That's a form of discrimination which should not be permitted under the Human Rights Code.

When that section was originally introduced, the minister said it was temporary; that it was not intended to be permanently enshrined in the Code. Yet lo and behold, we find in Bill 11 that discrimination based on sex, physical or mental abilities is once again included in the Code. It is okay for insurance companies to pay less insurance to women than to men, simply by virtue of the fact that they're women. This is what the Code says. One of the battles that women have to deal with continually is poverty. One reason that the largest segment of poor people in this country are older women is because of the kinds of pensions and insurance benefits that we draw, as well as the failure to implement equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value legislation. Those things together are three strikes against us, which we've never been able to overcome. Here we have an opportunity, when the Code is being opened again.... The minister has a chance to redress those wrongs and he does the very opposite. He enshrines in the legislation — this is in section 3 of the bill — discrimination on the grounds of sex, physical or mental disability, with respect to premiums or benefits under contracts of insurance. That has to be changed. During the six months that this bill is hoisted, it will be possible for various women's groups in our society — and I'm sure the insurance groups too — to present their side of the argument to the minister, to demonstrate why that section should be taken out.

[5:30]

The other thing: equal pay for work of equal value has not been dealt with in this piece of legislation clearly and firmly and strongly enough. It isn't there. Almost the same king of work, substantially the same kind of employment — those words really don't mean anything. The Code has to be very clear and very firm that employers are not going to be permitted to pay members of one sex a different wage than they pay members of the other sex when the work they're doing is of equal value. The federal code has taken that matter and dealt with it very well. If the only thing the minister did was to introduce a piece of legislation that read like the federal Human Rights Act, he would be much further ahead, and British Columbians would be much better protected than they are under Bill 11. Bill 11 does not address itself strongly and sufficiently enough to that very basic and intrinsic concept of equal pay for work of equal value. During the six months this bill is hoisted, if the minister still needs more evidence, more consultation and more dialogue with the groups in our society who are the victims of unequal pay, he'll have the opportunity to have that dialogue and consultation, to read those presentations and those briefs, to look at the statistics, to get to understand better and in a more profound way the impact of unequal pay on the women of our community.

I am really sorry that my green light is on, because I haven't really had an opportunity to deal in sufficient detail with the reasons why I think this bill needs to be hoisted. But in the little time that I have left to me I just want to talk about the educational role of human rights legislation and a human rights commission, and the importance of the educational role. A human rights commission or a human rights act which doesn't give a mandate to the commission to get out into the

[ Page 4465 ]

community and to educate the community at large about the economic, social, psychological and philosophical damage that is done to a community by discriminatory practices and by discrimination is really an inadequate and useless piece of legislation or commission. What we're trying to do and what any kind of government should be trying to do, through its human rights legislation and its Human Rights Code, is not just punish people who discriminate. Their real role should be to eliminate discrimination — to wipe it out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The best way to do that is through educating people about discrimination and what is wrong with discrimination and about the impact of discrimination, not just on the victims but on the perpetrators themselves of the discriminatory acts and decisions that are being made. Education should be the number one priority of a human rights commission and human rights code. Getting out into the community — into all of its nooks and crannies — and into the school system and talking about why discrimination does not work in the best interests of everybody should be the number one priority and the number one function. If that job is done effectively, if that job is done well, then we can look forward to a day when we no longer need human rights legislation or a Human Rights Commission. But that's not going to be possible unless the educational component becomes a priority; that's not the case in this bill. That, among other reasons, is why I am supporting the amendment to hoist this legislation for six months.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think anything could be more appropriate than a hoist motion. The reason I say that it's the most appropriate measure that the opposition can possibly take is that we have been listening to the minister for some length of time, since the introduction of this bill and prior to that.... We have heard him say on a number of occasions that we were to have, and then we would have, and now we will have the best human rights legislation in the country. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to take time — and I suggest six months — to study his own bill. Not only has it weakened the human rights legislation of this province but, in the eyes of federal and other provincial experts, it now puts us in the one of the worst positions in the country, if this bill were to pass. Surely, under these circumstances, the hoist is the only way to go. The hoist gives him an opportunity to take six months and maybe have discussions, not only with the committee that he set up — and obviously he brought in the bill with very little discussion with them — but with people in other jurisdictions and with the Canadian human rights people.

There are enough holes in this act that you could drive a truck through. In the first place, before even bringing in the predecessor bill, Bill 27, he just took the whole human rights branch and ripped it apart. Then he brought in Bill 27, which died on the order paper, and then of course this "improved" Bill 11 in this session. The only thing improved that I can see is some of the language and the tinsel. It gives an impression of maybe doing something. But when you take that tinsel off and you think in terms of implementation, it's as lacklustre a piece of legislation as I've ever seen.

No staffing. You know we don't live in a province that's bereft of human rights offences. How do we pursue those who do commit offences if we don't have the structure with which to pursue them? We open up holes by saying that decisions to proceed with investigations may be made by the council, and they may decide not to just by virtue of the fact that they feel that a charge is frivolous or vexatious, as they say. Those are value judgments, and it concerns me that when you have a structure of this sort, those making the value judgments are going to be very much influenced by the minister.

I don't think that this will come as a shock to anybody, but I don't think that the minister has ever had a record in this province as one who gives a hoot about human rights. I don't think that that minister has ever shown in a speech, in actions, in words, in any way, that this is his favourite topic. I've never seen him speak out for those less fortunate than others. I've been here somewhat longer than he has, and I've listened carefully....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You may feel that way. Come and work against me in New Westminster. Run against me sometime and see how you make out.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill has been put before us not to help a situation that we have in B.C., but to inflame it.

Yesterday, or the day before, I watched a group of people outside the Legislature talking about how they feel about this bill. There was no doubt in my mind that they didn't go to all the trouble they did to come over here, some even to sleep on the lawn, just for kicks. They came over here because they're scared. They have every right to be scared in a province that has said we're not going to protect the rights of others with any kind of substantial legislation. It isn't unknown to have tolerance sit in the back seat in this province. We are a province with more — probably because of our geography — disparate people than most jurisdictions in Canada. One, we're relatively new; two, we're closer to the eastern Pacific Rim. Our climate also brings people who have had great difficulty surviving elsewhere.

[5:45]

How can this bill do the job that the minister says it's going to do when he has already done to the future of human rights legislation what he did to the past Human Rights Code? He ripped out the staff of the old human rights organization, and this new legislation does not propose for staffing. I suggest very sincerely that it's time the minister confessed that he's got a lousy piece of legislation before this House in terms of what it's supposed to be doing. If he says that, well.... Okay, I suppose as long as he's minister he can put that kind of stuff forward, but don't come dancing around the province telling us it's good when every expert in the field tells us it's bad. Yes, and there are a number of experts in the field. An expert in this particular field is one who has understood what the Socreds stand for in terms of protecting human rights.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. There are very few experts on that side of the House. You're not even an expert on the rules of the House, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). That member is sitting doing his bit in somebody else's chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Socred.

[ Page 4466 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, a Socred. X is an unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure. That's what an expert is.

The bill provides no real substantial assistance. One of the things we looked for was an education process. Do we find it here? No. What is a government for? A government, in my view, should not be a group whose sole aim is to strengthen the already strong. A government should be protecting the rights of those who are not so strong, and showing people the way. Without an education process, and without some very good, strong dedication to that, the government shows their weakness in terms of their policy in this regard. The thing that worries me most is the fact that that weakness may be deliberate. After that minister brought in Bill 27, and now Bill 11, neither of which does the job, it is very difficult for us to say that it was an accident. I don't think it was an accident. I think that he is deliberately weakening the whole human rights process in this province.

I just want to say a word about the "reasonable cause" provision. The effect of this, of course, is to remove protection against discrimination on grounds such as age — except for those between 45 and 65 — sexual orientation, language ability or any other ground not explicitly named. There are also serious questions as to whether discrimination based on pregnancy is covered.

Some of these things are so basic. So why has that occurred, Mr. Speaker? It has occurred because.... As I said at the outset, you can drive a truck through the holes, and this is one of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can drive a train through them.

MR. COCKE: A train, a truck and anything else, because it is full of holes.

I love the proof of intent. So now I have to prove that they intended to discriminate. That's marvellous, isn't it, colleagues? How do you do that? How do you go about it? How do I prove that what that person did was deliberate? All we know is that that person did it; but having done it, he is still quite innocent until I can prove an intent. Who are those most offended against, Mr. Speaker? Those who can ill afford the luxury of lawyers, counsellors and that kind of assistance. They are people who require legislation to protect their interests. They're not getting it from that minister who goes boasting around the country — and I don't know how he has the audacity to do it — that this is good, strong, solid legislation, when everybody that knows anything about legislation says it is not.

MS. SANFORD: He said that about Bill 26 too.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and 27, the predecessor, the mother of 11. Mr. Speaker, this is not strong legislation, it's weak. It's not good legislation; it's full of holes. And there are many people, no doubt, on the other side of the House who would very much like to be in a position to get up and argue with that minister about this legislation. I would like to have been a fly on the wall when this was discussed in caucus. I'll bet you that there was some pretty heavy-duty discussion with respect to this. And if there wasn't, then I'm ashamed of you all.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that does not in any way further the cause of those people who are facing discrimination, those people who are being put down, persecuted or whatever. Can you imagine having to prove intent? Well, I didn't intend to do it but the devil got into my whatevers. Hey, member for Surrey, I don't believe that this bill does the job by virtue of the fact that it is just so full of holes, so weak. I believe the minister designed it that way. He deliberately made this bill weak so that it can't do the job. I'll bet you the member for Surrey knows it, and I bet you he would love to get up here today and debate against the minister on this bill. But no, he can't, because we have caucus solidarity, don't we?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because it's a good bill.

MR. COCKE: Then why doesn't the member for Surrey get up and tell us why it's a good bill?

MR. REID: We will.

MR. COCKE: Do you know how many speakers we've had from across the way?

MS. BROWN: You're all supporting the hoist. No one has spoken against it.

MR. COCKE: Not one person has spoken against this hoist. They're all supporting the hoist.

MR. REID: We want to talk about lady golfers.

MR. COCKE: The member for Surrey is an expert on lady golfers, he tells us.

I want to go on. We've already talked a little bit about the whole question of proof of intent. What about enforcement? What is there in this bill that helps enforce a particular complaint or the pursuit of that complaint? It's bereft of any kind of an organization, bereft of staff. How are we going to see anything happen out of this bill, anything more than has happened in the last two years since that minister took over this portfolio? He has successfully bashed human rights in this province right into the ground — I believe with intent. I can't prove intent, can I? I can't prove he meant it. I suspect he did, but that doesn't do me any good — I can't prove it. And that lawyer over there should know that that kind of clause is absolutely ridiculous. It can do nothing but weaken this already wretched piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove intent.

MR. COCKE: There's another lawyer. How do you prove intent to discriminate?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be impossible in your case, because nobody could find out what's in your mind.

MR. COCKE: It would be impossible in my case, your case or any other case. You know it, don't you? You'll never be a judge if you don't admit that.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this legislation has been put before us to weaken rather than strengthen anything that might happen in this province vis-à-vis human rights. I don't know how complaints can be dealt with when you've got nobody dealing with them. I don't know how people are going to be able to afford the lawyers necessary to pursue

[ Page 4467 ]

their problems. All I know is that the minister is not doing the job he was commissioned to do when he took on that portfolio. When he took on that portfolio he should have looked at the Human Rights Code that we had and strengthened it. I agree with my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I agree that the original Human Rights Code — which, incidentally, having had nothing before, was great from that standpoint — did not include everyone it should have. I was part of that government and I plead guilty. But for crying out loud, at least it was progress. This is exactly the opposite.

[6:00]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They can laugh all they like. They can make all the chuckles they wish. I say vote for the hoist. Give the minister an opportunity — six months — to look it over and come back with something that can do a job in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
(LAND TRANSFER) ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984.

Bill 25 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.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.