[ Page 4569 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hospitals Amalgamation Act (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 4569

Oral Questions

Canada Health Act. Mrs. Dailly –– 4569

Emergency aid for village of Ware. Mr. Passarell –– 4570

Late payments from Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Blencoe –– 4571

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4571

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 5 –– 4571

Mr. Blencoe

On section 6 –– 4573

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

On section 7 –– 4576

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

On section 8 –– 4578

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 9 –– 4580

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 10 –– 4580

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

On Section 11 –– 4582

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 13 –– 4583

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 16 –– 4583

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 17 –– 4584

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 18 –– 4585

Mr. Gabelmann

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 4586

Mr. Blencoe –– 4586

Mr. Segarty –– 4587

Mr. Ree –– 4587

Mr. Mitchell –– 4587

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 4587

Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984 (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4588

Mr. Lauk –– 4588

Mrs. Wallace –– 4588

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4589

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4589

Mrs. Wallace –– 4589

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4590

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4590

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Committee stage

On Section 1 — 4591

Mr. Lockstead

On section 12 –– 4591

Mr. Lockstead

On section 14 –– 4592

Mr. Cocke

On section 20 –– 4592

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

On section 24 –– 4593

Ms. Sanford

On section 26 –– 4594

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

On section 30 — 4594

Mr. Passarell

MONDAY, MAY 7, 1984

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon is a very good friend and neighbour of mine, Dr. Egon Nikolai. Dr. Nikolai is an alderman in the municipality of Burnaby, and he is also the past president of the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia. Joining him shortly will be his wife, Fern Nikolai. Fern is the director of protocol for the B.C. Summer Games. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: In the gallery or in the precincts today we have two groups of young people visiting the Legislature. The first is from the Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Greater Victoria, and the second group is a group of pre-employment students from Victoria Senior Secondary School. I would ask the House to wish them welcome today.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today is a long-time personal friend and a former colleague from the teaching profession in Fort St. John. He's now from Duncan. I would like the House to welcome Mr. David Holmes.

MR. MOWAT: I have two introductions today. My colleague for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and my colleague for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) ask the members to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Ian McKay from Osoyoos. Mr. Ian Mckay is the governor for Gyro in District 4.

I also have the pleasure of introducing to the House Dr. John Silver, who is the vice-president of the College of Dental Surgeons. They're holding their annual conference and annual meeting in Victoria this week. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming these people.

Introduction of Bills

HOSPITALS AMALGAMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospitals Amalgamation Act.

Bill 26 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.

Oral Questions

CANADA HEALTH ACT

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Health has referred to the Canada Health Act as "stupid." Could the minister tell the House what is stupid about an act which reinforces the basic principles of medicare and which passed the House of Commons by a vote of 213 to 0?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I won't take all of question period to answer the member's question, but since the member is being selective in her support for it, I may also mention that the act has been opposed by all the provinces of Canada, and it is the provinces who have the responsibility of administering and providing health care in the country.

I think the member is quoting me on a good day when I referred to the bill as being stupid. I have had more descriptive phrases which I think more accurately describe the impact of the Canada Health Act on the country.

Mr. Speaker, basically the act, if it comes into force as written, will not provide improved health care to the citizens of Canada, but it will cost a great deal more to provide health care services. Its major flaw, among many — one of its major flaws, at least — is that it does not take into consideration the regional requirements of health care in Canada, and once again I emphasize that the provinces have had the experience with respect to delivery of health care. The federal government has completely ignored that and apparently are going about a political exercise rather than improving health care services to our people.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary to the minister. My basic question to the minister, which he chose not to answer.... I'll ask it again, and I'll reword it; perhaps that will make it clearer. Does the minister not accept the fact that the Canada Health Act was primarily brought in to reinforce and ensure that the basic principles of medicare will prevail in our country?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister explain to the House what there is about the act which did not reinforce the principles of medicare?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the principles of medicare were not under attack, except perhaps in the opinion of some who felt that certain aspects of provincial administration were inconsistent with their interpretation of medicare. The questions apparently most often on the mind of the federal minister were extra billing and user fees. Every province, I believe, in conferences I attended, told the federal minister when she would listen — which was very rarely — that they would be prepared to sit down to discuss these aspects that all indicated that the unilateral method by which the federal government chose to interfere was not going to resolve the problem. Mr. Speaker, I can elaborate. Despite the introduction and passage of the Canada Health Act — I believe it's still awaiting royal assent — as far as I know, the provinces have told the federal minister that they do not intend to change the method by which they now provide health care in the provinces, including the provinces which permit extra billing and those which have user fees. So nothing has been gained, except it will cost more, with much more bureaucracy. The former Health minister of Quebec may have been close to the truth when he said the purpose of the Canada Health Act is to employ about 6,000 bureaucrats who didn't have a job to do after the financing formula was changed. She may be quite right.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a further supplementary to the minister. Is it not true that all federal parties, including the federal Conservatives, supported this act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member would know that that is correct: all three parties in the federal House

[ Page 4570 ]

supported the act in principle and, I believe, voted for it when it went through. Because there is a federal election in the offing, I was asked by representatives in Ottawa, what was their choice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: All the members I spoke with.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, it's interesting that the minister is making his own references to what is meant and has been stated by the leaders of the federal parties, including the leader of the Conservative Party. I think they would be most interested to know that the Minister of Health in B.C. is saying to this House that he does not really believe that the federal minister is being straight with the people of Canada when he says he's against this act. That is really what the minister has just said to the House. Is that correct?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in that the federal Minister of Health refuses to discuss the issue with her provincial counterparts, I think it's somewhat irrelevant what her opinion may be, since it's such a secret. The federal minister simply will not discuss the Canada Health Act with the provincial Ministers of Health — although there was a death-bed change when we were in Ottawa to discuss this with the Senate committee. A message came that the minister would be pleased to meet "at some time." Prior to that, it was suggested that a meeting could be held sometime next year.

The federal minister may have all the reasons in the world for introducing the Canada Health Act. I don't know anyone who has questioned her integrity. What has been questioned is the need for the new act, the reasons behind it and whether it will be effective. As far as I know, every province and territory in Canada has asked the federal minister not to bring the act in. Every province, as far as I know, has reasons to ask that it not be enacted as law. I think it is certainly the consensus of the provincial Ministers of Health that the Canada Health Act will not improve health care in Canada. It will cost a great deal more. It will require a tremendous amount of increased bureaucracy. In my dealings with other ministers, they question the real motive behind the act; what they suggest that might be is for them to say.

MRS. DAILLY: We just have more generalities from the minister. I realize this is not the forum to debate those statements; maybe we will at a future time.

My next question to the minister is this. The minister, in stating that he's going to continue to collect health user fees, in essence is going to be breaking the law of Canada. Why?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There is no compulsion on the part of any province to discontinue collecting user fees. It is not contrary to the Canada Health Act, even when it becomes law.

MRS. DAILLY: The whole essence of the Canada Health Act was to discourage the provinces from enforcing user fees on their citizens. I think the minister would agree with that. So I ask him again: if that is the purpose of the act, why is he setting such a bad example for municipalities and school boards in this province in not going along with the law of the federal government? I ask the minister: if his own hospital board or the school boards or the municipalities did the same thing, would he accept it?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is the intent of the province and the government of British Columbia to obey federal statutes. The Canada Health Act does not require a province to give up extra billing or to give up user fees. The Canada Health Act simply says that should you do that, the federal government may deduct from their transfer payments to your province a like amount of money. It doesn't say you can't. The reason given to us in Ottawa was that the federal government recognized that constitutionally that's a provincial responsibility and provincial jurisdiction. The word we were given by the people in Ottawa was that they cannot impose upon us those conditions. But their lawyers have told them they can deduct a similar amount of money from the transfer payments, which would mean that the federal government would say to a province which may be collecting fees or allowing extra billing, or a myriad other possibilities: "That amount of money will be calculated, identified and deducted from your transfer payment. However, if you fall in line within the period of three years, you can have the money back." But it does not prohibit the province from charging user fees, nor does it prohibit a province from permitting medical doctors to extra-bill. It doesn't prohibit it; it simply penalizes it.

MRS. DAILLY: A final supplementary. In other words, though, you are still breaking the spirit of that law. May I ask this final question to the minister: is it true, then, because of the Socred government's obsession with imposing user fees on the people of British Columbia, that not only are you going to be not following the law but you are going to charge extra taxes to the people of British Columbia to pay for the user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Let me make it very clear that despite the style and manner that the member for Burnaby North may be using, the province of British Columbia is not breaking a federal statute, nor does it intend to break a federal statute. We shall comply with the law. We will be able to and shall continue to provide the citizens of British Columbia with a first-class health care system. We will find ways of financing it. We will continue in our efforts to develop the most cost-efficient program we possibly can without reducing the services which are offered to our citizens. I want it very clear that we are not going to break the law. We think the law is silly, but we do not intend to break it, nor would I expect municipalities, school districts or citizens of British Columbia to break the law of the province or the country.

EMERGENCY AID FOR VILLAGE OF WARE

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the Attorney-General. This weekend there was reported a serious incidence of famine and disease among the native people of Ware in Northern British Columbia. What steps has the Attorney-General taken to secure emergency aid for the people of the village of Ware?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think, as the member knows, the province is not charged with responsibility of that kind in relation to the native people or their reserves. That is a federal responsibility. But having said that, I will be very pleased to

[ Page 4571 ]

look into the report — which I saw also in the press on the weekend — and get back to him on it. It is the responsibility of the federal government — constitutionally, in any event — for the conditions that have taken place over many years on the reserves of this country, and for the appalling conditions which we would hope would be improved with the advancement of self-government. And I mean real self-government; I don't mean setting up lovely little tinselly constitutional models. The real inauguration of self-government in many of these native communities, as well as partnerships in industrial undertakings and commercial ventures, will improve the lot of the native people, which is an objective we share. I don't know the circumstances about Ware. I will look into them and make a report.

MR. PASSARELL: It's fine to talk about self-government. The fact remains that there are people who are starving. Are you going to allow jurisdictional disputes and other administrative details to stand in the way of people who desperately need food and medical supplies this week?

LATE PAYMENTS FROM
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources, but as she's not here I'll ask her alternate, who I believe is the Provincial Secretary. It has come to our attention that the Ministry of Human Resources has not issued many payments for all sorts of statutory services. Will he explain why a large number of payments are up to six weeks late from the Ministry of Human Resources?

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the absence of the Minister of Human Resources, I'll be glad to take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister at the very earliest opportunity.

MR. BLENCOE: I've been advised that several day-care centres, particularly one or two in this area, have not received cheques of $6,000. They're having to borrow money and pay interest. Will the minister give a personal assurance today that these cheques will be prepared and delivered forthwith?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you recognize that the question is out of order. The main question was taken as notice, and therefore the second question really isn't relevant and shouldn't have been allowed to be asked.

Introduction of Bills

YOUNG OFFENDERS (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act.

Bill 22 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 5.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to propose an amendment to this section. I will start off by reading the actual wording of the amendment and give the background and describe the rationale behind it. I'd like to move an amendment to section 5 by deleting section 5(l) and substituting the following:

"(1) No person shall (a) deny to a person or class of persons the right to occupy as a tenant space that is in any way represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant, or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy of the space, unless reasonable cause exists for the denial or discrimination.

"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, sex, marital status, physical or mental condition, sexual orientation, political belief, family composition, source of income or language normally spoken shall not constitute reasonable cause."

That is my amendment that I put before you on Friday, and I believe the minister has received a copy of it.

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I put this forward basically as an adjunct to the Residential Tenancy Act. There was a belief that Bill 11 and Bill 19 were a sort of package in terms of the issue of tenancy, purporting to protect tenancy and tenants' rights and eliminate any kind of discrimination. It's our position that Bill 11 is not sufficient in terms of ensuring that certain tenants are given adequate or sufficient protection. As I stated in hours of discussion on Bill 19, it's not there either. This bill purports to prohibit discrimination in tenancy premises, but in our estimation there are glaring omissions from the list of protections in this section. One has to do with age, another has to do with political belief, and one has to do with sexual preference.

The political belief is indeed a very important one. It's one that often can go unnoticed. But we know, particularly in these crazy, hazy, mad days in British Columbia whereby those who may hold a different political belief than those in power.... We know what can happen sometimes if they are in a particularly sensitive job. We know, for instance, that public servants in the province do indeed feel very scared that if they happen to support another political party beside the one currently in power, they have things to be worried about.

[ Page 4572 ]

I am concerned that in Bill 11 and in Bill 19, which did not take care of this particular issue, political belief may be and will be a reason for discrimination in tenancy. The member to my left, wherever he hails from, says: "Sure, it's good reason for discrimination — political belief." There we are, Mr. Chairman; we have a member of the government already saying what we feared, that political belief is a good reason for discrimination in tenancy. That's the very reason we indeed need to have something in it. If you happen to be of a different political persuasion than your landlord, it will be quite easy now, with Bill 19 being very weak and now Bill 11, to discriminate or deny or find ways to evict a tenant because of political persuasion. That sort of discrimination, particularly on political grounds, is totally alien to the Canadian way of life. There are certain things that have been guaranteed in Canada — freedom to support any political party. When a piece of human rights legislation omits that tenants — 380,000 of them — may indeed be subject to discrimination because they hold a political belief other than that of their landlord, it raises all sorts of problems.

[2:30]

There is no question that the whole question of tenants' rights, the whole question of residential tenancy legislation, has become a very controversial matter. Because of the current attitude of the government, tenants have had to become political to protect whatever rights they currently enjoy, and there aren't many.

Mr. Chairman, tenants play a vital role in many community organizations. Quite often they make public statements on issues of the day. Because of the weaknesses of this section, they are vulnerable to discrimination in housing as a result of this piece of legislation. Some 380,000 tenants, 36 percent of all households in British Columbia, do not have protection under the Human Rights Act against discrimination based on political belief in terms of what the landlord may do to them. That is, I hope, an oversight by the minister. I hope.

Tenants appear at all levels of government to make known their concerns on a wide range of community issues. Under Bill 11, Mr. Chairman, there will be nothing to stop a landlord from discriminating by saying, "Well, I don't like that person anymore," or, if they come to rent a property: "Well, you're active in your community. You may have political beliefs that don't go along with mine." Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that landlord can deny tenancy to that person.

They often appear at municipal halls speaking on behalf of tenants and usually in opposition to insensitive development proposals. That raises a whole other issue, another set of scenarios that may arise for those tenants who organize and speak out on tenants' issues. They may be discriminated against. This has to be plugged. Specifically, many of these tenants have spoken out through their own organizations on the changes to residential tenancy legislation. Now they have very little protection in Bill 19, the Residential Tenancy Act. Those people who have spoken out against the government will have no protection in the Human Rights Act for speaking out against this government. Think about that, Mr. Chairman: one large group in British Columbian society, tenants, will have no protection in terms of political belief under this section relating to tenancy premises. It's a major oversight, and it is most unfortunate.

Mr. Chairman, even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) claims in his motion on the order paper that anyone should be allowed to speak anywhere on any subject in British Columbia. That's Motion 22. That minister's beliefs are totally not going to be met in this particular section, because 36 percent of the population of British Columbia are going to be denied protection under the Human Rights Act in terms of their political belief. Indeed, tenants run a risk of retribution from the failure of this government to protect them against discrimination based on political belief. I would hope the minister will take that under advisement.

The second area which concerns me is the discrimination in age that could happen under this section. Why is there no protection, for instance, for seniors in this bill? Is it this government's policy to discriminate on the basis of age? In the B.C. Housing Management Commission's rules, which I think should be challenged and reviewed, there is written right in the rules, policies and procedures an act of discrimination. I will read this particular section:

"Couples, one of whom is over the age of 55, overhoused in a family development, will be required to move to a senior citizen building. Consideration will be given to area/building preferred but cannot be guaranteed. Where there is no senior citizen accommodation within a reasonable distance, a one-bedroom family unit may be considered. Where no one bedroom accommodation exists, a notice to terminate tenancy is in order."

In other words, they will try to find something, but a notice of termination is always the last resort. This, Mr. Chairman, is an area of concern. There certainly is nothing in this piece to protect seniors in that situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the hon. member at this point that discussion about age should have been more correctly discussed in second reading or in section 1, the interpretation section of the act. Further, neither section 5 nor the member's amendment refers to age. So the discussion would be irrelevant at this point. If we could return to the relevant material in the amendment, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to give the government some indication that particularly in the tenancy section there are some definite weaknesses, which I think have to be considered.

The area that I do state in the amendment is the whole question of family composition. It is one that I won't take much time on, but I happen to think it is an extremely important issue in the province of British Columbia. Something we have not come to terms with — we have done very little about it — is the rampant discrimination in rental accommodation based on family composition. I don't think I have to tell that to members who have read the ads saying: "No pets and no children." It has become clear that in many respects, in terms of rental accommodation, families are second-class citizens. I know it's a controversial issue. There are landlords who say, "I don't want children in my building," etc., and they feel it's their right. The issue is that more and more families are having to live in rental accommodation, but of course they can't find rental accommodation because landlords are able to discriminate based on family composition.

It's a very important issue, one that British Columbians concerned about families finding decent shelter have to deal with. We've got to come to terms with it, because families are becoming not wanted — not only in many areas of other

[ Page 4573 ]

pieces of legislation, but there's nothing in this one to ensure that those with families get decent shelter. They continue to run up against: "No children." "We don't want families here." It's an issue we have to deal with. In my own riding — and I'm sure in everybody's riding — we continue to hear that families, particularly those who have smaller incomes than some others of us.... It's very difficult to find decent accommodation, and it's even harder when landlords don't want children in their buildings. It's something we must address.

I won't take much more time. Suffice to say that I think this amendment does ensure that tenants are protected and have rights, as was not done in Bill 19. It's a reasonable amendment and should be endorsed by this House.

Amendment negatived.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment I left on the table late last week, which would read as follows.

"To delete section 6 and substitute the following:

"6(l) no person shall publish or cause to be published or otherwise display or disseminate any invitation to apply for employment, or any advertisement in connection with employment or prospective employment that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates a limitation, specification or preference in relation to a prohibited ground of discrimination;

"(2) no person shall use or circulate any form of application for employment or conduct any written or oral inquiry that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates a limitation, specification or preference in relation to a prohibited ground of discrimination;

"(3) no person shall request any applicant for employment to furnish any information concerning a prohibited ground of discrimination; and

"(4) no provision of this section shall be construed as prohibiting a limitation or specification stating that an applicant for employment must be capable of performing specific tasks or duties related to the employment or prospective employment or from requesting an applicant for employment to furnish information concerning the ability of the applicant to perform tasks or duties related to the employment or prospective employment."

Mr. Chairman, the problem that we have with section 6 of this bill is that while it does give protection against discriminatory advertisements, it does allow discriminatory limitations if they are "bona fide occupational qualification" — and I'll come back to that later on. More significantly, it does not cover employment application forms. If the section before this House is approved as is, we will be the only jurisdiction in this country, I believe, that will not or does not prohibit discriminatory application forms.

An employer putting an advertisement into a newspaper — or in whatever form — that puts an onus on the publisher to attempt to define what is or is not a bona fide occupational qualification.... For the most part, where the matter is grey, the publisher would have very little option but to take the employer's word that the limitations involved are in fact bona fide occupational qualifications. I would argue that this puts the newspapers and other publications in an untenable or impossible position because they're going to have to accept the advertiser's words. It also makes cases far more complicated than if we were specific, as we propose in the amendment that has just now been presented.

Our amendment to subsection (4) provides the prospective employers with the needed latitude — and I accept that they need some latitude to discriminate; for example, obviously someone hiring a secretary needs to be able to discriminate against people who can't type. That's a kind of discrimination — and there are many — that's appropriate and fair. But our amendment would preclude that prospective employer from saying words such as "man wanted," or "must be able-bodied," or a variety of terms that may or may not be appropriate to that particular job that's being advertised. Our amendment would allow an employer to state that the applicant must be able to perform heavy lifting. It would allow that questions directly related to the ability to perform required duties be allowed — as I mentioned before, typing, or whether or not you have a valid B.C. driver's licence for whatever category is needed in that particular job. So we're not being silly about the issue; we're just wanting to point out that in the bill before the House there will now, as we read it, not be any prohibition or any requirements that discrimination not take place in the job application forms or advertising.

Rather than make a big speech about it, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the minister would tell me either that he believes that that is already covered somewhere and somehow, or, alternatively, that he doesn't believe it should be. I'd appreciate some indication.

[2:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's quite clear that employment advertising in publications, whether they be print or electronic...is prohibited now under the terms of the bill. The onus wouldn't necessarily be on the publisher, in my opinion, but if someone felt that they were aggrieved, they have the opportunity to put in a complaint, through the bill, to the Human Rights Council. If in fact it wasn't bona fide, I'm sure the council would rule in that way.

On the matter of applications for employment, it is not in the bill and it is not covered anywhere else. The member is correct in that way. It was felt that it wasn't necessary. In fact, the important part of this legislation is whether or not an employer refuses to employ a person because of one of the prohibited sections of the act, whether it be sex or physical and mental disability or whatever, so the important part is whether or not that person gets the employment. As a matter of fact, I would think that if an employer said, for instance, on an employment form, "Are you black?" and the complainant made a complaint that they weren't hired because they were black, I think they would have a pretty good case and the employer would have contributed to that good case. So it's in an employer's best interest not to ask questions which could be construed as being prohibited under this act. We had a lot of advice on this, and I was convinced that the advice that that section was not necessary was correct.

MR. GABELMANN: I've had advice, too, Mr. Chairman — obviously different from the minister. It's not clear at all to me. Leaving aside the question of newspaper advertising, because I really do want to deal with the job application form, I think it's quite clear that section 6 does not deal with

[ Page 4574 ]

job application forms; the minister said that. If on an application form the question "What's your race; what's your colour; what's your creed; what's your political belief?" — any number of those questions — were asked, they are not precluded in job application forms when you read section 6. If I understand the minister correctly, he's saying they are also not precluded anywhere else in the legislation. If I understand his argument, he's saying that we don't need that, that job application forms are somehow different from newspaper ads or different from any other activity of discrimination. I must say I don't understand why we would not allow it publicly, but would allow it in this semi-public form of a job application form.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you know, what we're obviously attempting to cover in public locations is the kind of employer who would say: "Truck driver wanted. No blacks need apply." You know, that's very clear-cut. Or: "No women need apply." We want to make sure that that's absolutely covered. And it is covered, Mr. Chairman. That's why I was convinced that we should put that section back in. I don't think that in this day and age anyone would do that, but we don't want to leave the opportunity there for them to do that.

If you were an employer and you had a job application form and you knew that the law said that you cannot discriminate against a person because that person is black, and you asked that person on a form whether or not he was black or whether or not he had a physical disability.... I'd be frightened to death of doing that, because if the person then decided that he or she didn't get the job because of a physical disability, he or she would go to the Human Rights Council. They're going to look at what the employer asked, and think it was pretty clear that that was the reason for not hiring that employee. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that not having this may be a significant advantage rather than a disadvantage.

MR. GABELMANN: The words are: "No person shall publish or cause to be published an advertisement in connection with employment...." I don't think the Human Rights Council would view a job application form as an advertisement. Okay? I think this is kind of what we agree on and what we disagree on. I think we agree that under this section no employer is going to run an ad in the newspaper saying: "Truck driver wanted. No blacks need apply." No employer is going to do that because, if that employer did, he or she would be in violation of section 6. We agree that you can't discriminate on these bases, including race or colour, in advertising for jobs. But I think the council, in interpreting the legislation, would have some difficulty — maybe they can do it; I can't see how — in determining that a job application form that an individual picks up and fills out either at the Canada Manpower office or at the employer's office, which says on that form not, "No blacks need apply," but "How old are you? What's your name? What's your address? What's your place of origin? What's your gender...?" Nothing in section 6 precludes that. It doesn't say, "No blacks need apply," to use the minister's phrase, but asks a series of questions that are not relevant to the job, and they're not precluded under this section or any other section.

I would appeal to the minister to understand that what I'm attempting to do this afternoon, which might be a little bit different than what I might have been doing Friday afternoon, is to point out some areas of the bill where I think the minister's intent and ours would in fact be the same — based on what I understand the minister is saying in general — and to try to point out where the bill is in fact silent. Job application forms, in my view, are clearly not covered in any questions pertaining to non-relevant issues, such as the ones I mentioned, that can be asked. While the employer may never admit to it at a board of inquiry, without there being any proof of it, it could be used as a reason for the employment not being granted.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the minister and I had a little go-round on this on Thursday afternoon, because I was concerned about a person from my riding who had applied as a baker's helper to an ad placed in the local paper, saying "person wanted as baker's helper." By the way, she was refused it because, in the words of the ad, the baker had a preference for a male. The minister assured me that there could be a case come about as a result of this. I'm not convinced about that, but I haven't sought legal advice to find it out either. I'll admit that at the outset. I think what the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is saying is that this kind of discrimination is not going to occur at the ad level. Someone would be absolutely stupid to put an ad in the paper that no blacks need apply. It is not going to occur at that level, any more than "person" wanted for baker's helper is going to appear in an ad.

On two or three of these clauses you have "limitation specification or preference, based on a bona fide occupational requirement." That's a big loophole, especially on preference. If he ever admitted that he preferred to have a male baker's helper, the case has to be proved. It is very simple to prove it if discrimination occurs in a printed form or on the media in such a way that it can be recorded, but very few people are going to tape record the conversation when they phone up to see if they got the job. That's the problem with it.

I think I related as well that the experience in the United States indicates that there really aren't many examples, other than the ones cited by the member for North Island. A secretary is expected to be able to type; a truck driver is expected to be able to drive. But on a sexual bias, only two occupations were uncovered. As the song goes, "Anything you can do, we can do better" — or at least as well. This is what my concern is and why I support the amendment. There are two occupations. One was an attendant in a ladies' washroom, where it was felt that a woman would probably be more appropriate for that kind of a task; the other one was actor or actress, specifically, although in Shakespeare's time that wasn't necessarily seized upon as a difference.

My concern is that I don't think that it offers protection if there is merely a prohibition against the publication or advertisement of another kind, say on the radio. What I am concerned about is that there are only two occupational requirements that we know of that are bona fide. Sure, strength is an important thing. It might be as far as the baker's helper is concerned, but this person clearly had a preference for a man, and yet was required by the law to say "person," but when it came right down to the verbal response to the applicant, it was a clear case of discrimination which you couldn't really prove. That is why we're concerned about this.

The same loophole appears again in clause 8. It is the same thing that we're trying to plug by this amendment, because we're expressing this kind of concern. Not that the act is deliberately out to discriminate itself, but it is weak in

[ Page 4575 ]

this regard, and probably legally weak as well. So I'd be interested in the minister's comments.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think I'll ever convince the member of that. The prohibition of employing a person has nothing to do with the section we're dealing with now. The prohibition of employment is in section 8, and it really doesn't matter what violations you make. You cannot advertise right now for a male to fill that position that you're talking about, but you can't discriminate, no matter how you advertise the position, by not hiring a person because of that person's sex. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year which are proved and corrected in this province, and which have and will be corrected, because you can't discriminate in employment on the basis of sex. It's as simple as that. It happens every day, and it goes an awful lot further than an attendant in a rest room. You cannot discriminate on the basis of sex — period.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has mentioned that perhaps some of this debate on the amendment might be better covered under section 8. Section 6 and the amendment to section 6 deal with advertising.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has indicated to us, Mr. Chairman, that he is not prepared to allow discrimination to take place through advertising; he has mentioned that under this particular section. I would like to know why, then, he is prepared to allow employers to ask the kinds of questions on an application form which they are not permitted to advertise publicly. Why, if he is prohibiting the use of discriminatory language by employers in advertising, is he prepared to accept it as part of an application form? He obviously is prepared to do that. I wonder if he could explain to me why he is prepared to accept it in one avenue and not in the other?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think I already did explain that, Mr. Chairman.

[3:00]

MS. SANFORD: For what reason does the minister feel that it is acceptable for an employer to ask, on an application form, political views, for instance? Why would the minister find that acceptable? I don't know if the minister is listening. Is it acceptable? Maybe he's getting advice from the Attorney-General on this. Why is the minister not prepared to say: "Mr. Employer, you cannot ask, on an application form, what a person's political views are." "Mr. Employer, you are not permitted to ask, on an application form, the colour of an applicant's skin."

The minister said he can't discriminate when he actually employs; then why on earth does he need to have that information on the application form? It seems to me he is opening the door here for employers to discriminate, by allowing those kinds of questions to appear on an application form. The minister has not explained to the satisfaction of those of us who sit on this side of the House why it is okay for employers to ask, on an application form for a job, "What is your political view?" "What colour is your skin?" "What is your sexual preference?" and on and on — all kinds of questions about height, weight and things which may or may not have anything to do with the job. If he doesn't need to know, if it's a question related to an area in which discrimination can take place, then in my view those questions should not appear on the application form, because it's an open invitation for the employer to hire on that basis. It is also very difficult in many cases to prove that he hired on some other basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I'll remind the committee that this debate would be much more relevant during discussion of section 8. We are dealing with advertising specifically now as we look at the amendment to section 6.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously my explanation has not sunk in and perhaps I didn't give it well enough. We don't think the section that's being proposed in the amendment is necessary because section 8 is so clear that discrimination in employment practices on any of the specific grounds is against the law.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognized and anticipated the deflection of this debate onto section 8. In fact, if an employer using this application form had as one of the questions, "Please list all of the organizations of which you are a member," and one of the answers was Knights of Columbus, that's an indication that the respondent is a Catholic. But that would be appropriate under section 6 or 8. I guess what we're trying to do, in recognizing that section 8 can be avoided in several ways by employers, is to deal with the issue. We made a judgment that this question of discriminatory application forms can best be dealt with in the job application section — section 6 of the act.

Let me put it another way, because clearly that line of argument won't work. Section 8 deals with the employment itself; section 6 deals with the advertising for that employment. Application forms clearly then, I think this House could agree, fall in between. The minister would argue that it's section 8 and is covered. I would argue that it isn't covered in a question about which organizations you belong to. In answering that question, you will unwittingly give answers to questions that should not have been asked.

I'm not going to pursue it much further. I think the cleanest and simplest way of dealing with that is to recognize that an application form is something being published about the particular job and therefore should be included in section 6.

I'm going to ignore all of the other arguments we've made in this particular section and say to the minister that the other day, in debating the hoist motion, I made some mistakes. I'll admit to that quite clearly. I had a piece of paper in my hand that referred to notes that I thought were Bill 11, when in fact they were on Bill 27. The minister said, "You're wrong," and I'm admitting it. There are occasions when it might be possible — I know it doesn't happen very often — that the minister is wrong too. I'm suggesting to him that if he believes that application forms should not be allowed to ask potentially discriminatory questions, he should simply add a minor amendment of his own — ignore our amendment as he did in section 3, in clarifying the kind of insurance he meant — clarifying in this case that application forms also cannot ask those kinds of discriminatory questions.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved.

[ Page 4576 ]

On section 7.

MR. GABELMANN: On section 7, I have an amendment which is also on the table, I believe. It reads as follows:

"By deleting section 7 and substituting the following:

"7(l) It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees employed in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value.

"7(2) In assessing the value of work performed by employees employed in the same establishment, the criterion to be applied is the composite of the skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed.

"7(3) Separate establishments established or maintained by an employer solely or principally for the purpose of establishing or maintaining differences in wages between male and female employees shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a single establishment.

"7(4) An employer shall not reduce wages in order to eliminate a discriminatory practice as described in this section.

"7(5) For the purposes of this section, 'wages' means any form of remuneration payable for work performed by an individual and includes salaries, commissions, vacation pay, dismissal wages, bonuses, reasonable value for board, rent, housing, lodging, payments in kind, employer contributions to pension funds or plans, long-term disability plans and any other advantage received directly or indirectly from the individual's employer."

What we have here is the classic debate that goes on in this country between those people who believe on one hand that women should receive equal pay for equal work and those of us who believe on the other hand that work of equal pay for work of equal value should be the overriding principle.

The federal Human Rights Act adopts the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This bill adopts a principle of equal pay for work of similar or substantially similar value. There is a significant difference, and I think the minister is probably well aware.... I'm hopeful that the advisory committee that advised him on the legislation gave him the advice that he should have taken concerning this particular section.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

By our amendment we are in effect going beyond what we had before in this province. I think it's a principle that has been well established, well adopted, in recent years: that is, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The problem is the language used by the bill or the Code, which uses similar language which has been in effect for ten years. The problem is that the protection for women in that case only applies when the jobs are similar. Therefore, for example, a women can lose a case because her lower-paying job has many duties and responsibilities not required of a higher-paid man. Ironically, in this case the added duties that a women might have in effect allow the employer to say: "It's not similar work; therefore we can pay a lower wage." In fact, there have been enough cases to demonstrate that that loophole does exist. This is avoided by using the term "equal pay for work of equal value."

The federal experience with this language has, I think, demonstrated clearly and conclusively that there are no problems involved with using that concept. Obviously there were many in our society who predicted that that concept would lead to difficulties in interpretation and in applying the principle. The fact is that we've not had those problems at the federal level. I see no reason why the concept of equal pay for work of equal value could not be adopted by us too in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I see a number of difficulties. The words that we have in the present Code and in the bill which is presented to the House now have worked very well in this province. It's been demonstrated that they've worked well. The whole concept of equal pay for work of equal value perhaps should be looked at in another forum besides this one right now. Perhaps there should be some kind of a commission set up to study the application of it.

I see some real dangers to freely bargained collective agreements in the same company which may have three different unions. One of those unions may bargain a wage which is, say, $2 an hour above what the other union has. What do you do if you get an application that the work is of equal value? Do you automatically say then, if that's the case, you bring the other person up to two bucks, or do your say: "I'm sorry; you bargained that collective agreement, but you bargained way above the equal values so you go back down to the equal value"?

There's a lot of problems. You may say there aren't, but we've identified many, many problems with that whole concept. The concept of the same.... There is no doubt that a woman who drives a truck and a man driving a truck should get the same pay. That's been established quite well in British Columbia, and it's getting established more every day as more case history happens. Mr. Chairman, I think there are so many pitfalls here that may in fact destroy some relationships which have been built up over the years, and only one of them is collective bargaining. I think at this time the government can't accept this concept. Certainly I would be willing to recommend to my colleagues that perhaps some task force or something like that be put together to have a look at the whole question. But at this time I think there are too many questions and not enough answers.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the problem with the minister's position is that it leaves the gate wide open for discrimination to continue to occur. It doesn't take any steps to prevent that.

The similarity of a job — as my colleague has pointed out — can be destroyed completely by adding to the woman's duties that she is responsible for making the coffee. That has been a case in point. I recall an arbitration case over that specific thing in the days when I worked at B.C. Hydro. I think that if the minister were familiar with what happened at B.C. Hydro, it would give him an idea of how this problem can be resolved. What happened there was that women in the old B.C. Electric had a different pay scale than men for the same job. When the merger took place and B.C. Hydro was formed, there was a concerted move on the part of the amalgamated trade union and employees' association and

[ Page 4577 ]

B.C. Hydro to take some steps to get rid of those two salary scales. There was a joint committee with the various unions involved — OTEU, IBEW, ATU — and management. They sat down and evaluated the jobs and the value to the company, whether an account clerk or a lineman out on the job, and they set some various criteria: if you're a lineman your job has more value, because you're required to go out and work in the elements and go out on calls at night. Those criteria were taken into consideration, and an overall classification was drawn up where jobs were considered of equal value and the pay scale, based on that, was set accordingly. It's not an insurmountable problem. It's something that has been accomplished by B.C. Hydro, the Crown corporation, and it is something that is long overdue, because we continue to see women discriminated against.

[3:15]

Of course, just resolving this isn't going to resolve the problem of discrimination against women in the workplace. The minister will be aware that the report that B.C. Hydro put out very recently indicates that women are still being discriminated against in the hiring, in spite of all that kind of work. Something like 80 percent of women are in those low-paid brackets of the 2 to 5 steps on the salary range. The reason that is happening is that we don't have the strong legislation that we need in this province to prevent that kind of discrimination. We have no affirmative action programs within government or Crown corporations. We do not even have, under the proposed legislation of the minister, the strength that is required to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. He's talking about similar work, and he might as well not even write it into the act, because it has utterly no meaning when it comes to practice and actually relating and equating that to jobs in question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think a lot has changed. First of all, I agree that it's a lot like collective bargaining. A group of people, employers and employees, can sit down and evaluate jobs. That's a legitimate way of deciding what the basis of bargaining should be. It can also fail, as it did to a very large degree in the hospital workers' situation, where they tried to do this and worked for something like two years attempting to evaluate jobs within the hospital industry. They were successful in some, but it just got to the point where we were talking about $200 million in additional costs and then it got badly bogged down.

MRS. WALLACE: That shows the size of the underpayment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, maybe it shows some size of an overpayment. You can argue that either way.

What I said earlier is that lots has changed, and there has been an awful lot of case law now which makes the workplace much more fair than it used to be. We frankly don't get an awful lot of complaints anymore about straight discrimination on payment between men and women. Sometimes it is done in ignorance, and when they realize that they've done it, they fix it. That's really all that is necessary for us to do. There is the odd case yet, but it's not the problem it once was. I just think that there are so many ramifications in here to so many parts of society that I'd like to look at it a while. As I said to the Chairman earlier, the government isn't prepared to accept it at this time, but we are prepared to have a look at it. This Legislature will be sitting again, I hope.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that the minister is suggesting that some form of commission or study be undertaken, and I welcome that. I hope that that's not an effort just to put it on the back burner and when some report does come down it collects dust on the shelf like so many others. I trust that that's a serious suggestion and that we will reach some conclusions in time for a legislative session not more than 12 months from now. Clearly we're not going to win this issue here today. I would rather win a year from now than not at all. So I'm prepared to accept that.

The minister talked about the question of different unions with the same employer having different remuneration schedules for work of equal value. Job evaluation is the recognized method of dealing with that particular problem. I'm not proposing or suggesting that we adopt holus-bolus the American approach to this issue in which what happens is that the underpaid employees have in effect, in many cases, been granted back pay in substantial numbers of dollars to bring them up to the higher rate in each of the cases where women had been underpaid. That's probably an appropriate solution, but that's not the way it would be done here. It would be done through job evaluation. Job-evaluation programs are always done jointly between management and its unions. It seems to me to provide the obvious apparatus to solve that particular problem.

As the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) points out, it is interesting how we can adopt a principle or pretend to adopt a principle that women and men should be paid equally, but suddenly when it costs $200 million it's not a principle anymore. I've always wondered how principles can have price-tags. But they appear to, in this particular case.

In summary I say again that the federal legislation has demonstrated over some years now that the concept of equal pay for work of equal value is workable in this country. The minister didn't mention the American precedents, and we don't need to follow those precedents. We have our own ways in this country, better ways in my view, of working out those problems outside the judicial system, where they seem to be locked into making decisions that often don't make sense. But we have alternative ways, and the job-evaluation program is one.

I would just say to the minister that again I trust that this study will be based on his agreement with the concept, with the implication or the conclusions of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Because we do have the situation frequently where women have jobs that are more responsible and are paid less because they are not similar jobs. That's an important element in a lot of employer-employee situations in this province. It has not and will not be dealt with either by the Code that we've had or the case law that's been developed over the years in that Code. Certainly, because the language is the same, it's not going to be dealt with in this particular bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I can do much more at this time anyway. I have still have the same worries. I don't think the matter has been tested a lot at the federal level. I guess I ask the question: what do you do in a case of a collective agreement?

Interjection.

[ Page 4578 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Job evaluation? When? There are companies that have three, four or five different unions, and they bargain collectively to decide what their wage level will be; that, I'm sure, includes men and women as well. I can't be comfortable with it, and I can't accept the arguments the member makes that it's all so easy to do. Again, I'd be willing between now and the next session to take a serious took at the whole question, do some serious studies about problems as well as advantages, and come back. But at this time the government can't accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. GABELMANN: Again because the amendments which were presented aren't printed on the order paper — simply because of the rules — I'm going to have to read this amendment. I apologize in advance not only to members of the House but to myself for the boring nature of reading two pages of the amendment, but I intend to do it.

"That section 8 be amended by deleting section 8 and substituting the following:

"8(l) Everyone has the right of equality of opportunity based on bona fide qualifications in respect of his or her occupation or employment or in respect of an intended occupation, employment advancement or promotion, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

"(a) no person nor anyone acting on his or her behalf shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ or to advance or promote any other person or otherwise discriminate against any other person in respect of employment or a condition of employment, and

"(b) no employment agency shall refrain from referring any person for employment or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to employment unless reasonable cause exists for such refusal, discrimination or conduct.

"(2) For the purposes of subsection 1,

"(a) the race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, physical or mental condition, sexual orientation, political belief, age, family composition, source of income or language normally spoken shall not constitute reasonable cause,

"(b) the sex of a person shall not be reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public decency,

"(c) a provision respecting Canadian citizenship in any act constitutes reasonable cause,

"(d) a conviction or a charge for a criminal offence or other summary offence shall not constitute reasonable cause unless such conviction or charge relates to the occupation or employment or to the intended occupation or employment.

"(3) No provision of this section relating to age prohibits the operation of any term of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan or any terms or conditions of any bona fide group or employee insurance plan or of any bona fide scheme based upon seniority.

"(4) This section does not prohibit the refusal to continue to employ a person because that person has reached the age specified in a contract of employment or collective agreement as the age of retirement, provided that such contract or collective agreement specifies an age of retirement that is normal for individuals working in positions similar to the position of the person whose employment is terminated, and provided further that such contract or collective agreement provides pension or other benefits sufficient to allow such person to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by the person prior to such retirement.

"(5) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a refusal to employ or to continue to employ or to advance or promote a person or to otherwise make a distinction with respect to a person or to refrain from referring a person for employment because such person is not capable of performing tasks or duties that constitute a substantial and important part of the employment or prospective employment or the employment of the person would create an unreasonable risk in terms of safety, provided that such determination is based upon an assessment of the capabilities of the individual and, to the extent possible, the safety risks pertaining to the individual and not upon characteristics assumed to be common to a group of which such person is a member."

I apologize to all the English teachers for the length of the sentences.

There are a number of principles involved in this, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments on the essential one, the question of reasonable cause, which seems like such a reasonable way to me and to our side to solve many of the problems in this part of the legislation. So I will leave that, other than to say that in terms of discrimination in employment such a reasonable cause section could in fact make sure there was no discrimination in relation to various of the categories we've talked about before, such as people with not sufficient English in jobs that don't require the English language, family composition, age, source of income, sexual orientation — all those categories which will now not be protected by this legislation.

[3:30]

I want to just suggest a couple of other elements of a principle contained in this particular amendment. The problem with doing so many of these is that you've got to read, think and talk all at the same time sometimes, and it's a little bit difficult. In our view the question of allowing discrimination in this section of Bill 11.... No, I will leave that alone; that deals more properly with another section.

The question of mandatory retirement. The minister talks about commissions and studies, and there's a good subject for a study. I suspect that if we were taking free votes in the Legislature or in the community affected by mandatory retirement, we'd have interesting divisions. I know that there are divisions within the trade union movement on the question. I personally happen to be one who finds the concept that because you reach age 65 you suddenly are no longer useful to the workforce to be quite inappropriate. I think there are some people who at age 55 or 48, or 83 might have reached an appropriate time for retirement. We don't have a mandatory retirement clause in the Legislature — I'm not going suggest that we do....

[ Page 4579 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fifty.

MR. GABELMANN: How about 40? It's a question and I don't want to be too light about it.... There are any number of individuals who can contribute very well to their particular job past the age of 65. I think that individuals in senior management positions who are forced to retire at 65 often have an opportunity then to start a new career. I think of Tom Rust, who is an excellent example of a very capable person who reached retirement age in his company, and he was taken on by the government to do a particular job at Expo 86 — an excellent kind of use of people who reach 65. But for most ordinary working people those kinds of opportunities don't exist. What we have, in fact, is somebody working virtually full-time up to the time they reach that magic number, they may still be in good health and then they have to retire. For many of these people it's a death sentence.

So I just raise the topic not for any extensive debate this afternoon, or in fact for any criticism about whether or not this issue should have been covered in the Code, because I do think that on this issue some considerable public discussion needs to occur before we start to change what have been accepted ways of doing things. I suspect the public is ready for a change in this particular concept. Anyway, I'll leave that alone for the moment. There are obviously other elements to age discrimination at the other end of the scale — not to make a big political speech of it — and it baffles me how we can say in Human Resources income assistance programs that because you reach 25 you're suddenly eligible for more than when you were 24. There are a whole number of kinds of discrimination based on age that seem to me to be inappropriate, and we might consider them when there is some study done about the whole question of age.

Our proposed subsection (5), Mr. Chairman, the final one of this list, we would argue, is a less discriminatory substitute for the language that's contained in the bill. In respect of the bona fide occupational qualification, the thrust of the subsection is that a person cannot be excluded because of sex or physical disability or on any other discriminatory ground, but they can be excluded if they are not capable of performing the required work, as long as that determination is made after an individual assessment of the capacity of the person. Here we come to.... You have to be five foot eight to be a police officer, you have to be five foot ten to be a firefighter, you have to be 200 pounds, or any number of those discriminatory measurements that are made on the basis of an arbitrary decision rather than on an opportunity for the individual to be considered.

I find it amusing that quite often in this House, despite the public rhetoric of each of our parties, we end up defending the rights of the individual. The government is saying: "No, no, the collective is more important. We're going to make decisions based on that collective group." Because they are under a certain size or have a certain physical feature — when I say that I'm really talking about height or weight — they don't meet certain qualifications; therefore they're not eligible for certain jobs. To take the collectivist approach in that respect seems bizarre when in Social Credit one always talks about protecting the individual. It seems to me that if a five-foot-five individual has the physical strength and whatever else is required to do a job that has heretofore been considered able to be done only by persons five foot ten or over, then that person who is five foot five should be able to have that job. I know that there are a lot of people who are five foot five or less who are a lot stronger than I am. Just because I'm tall doesn't mean I'm strong, and vice versa. I'm not talking about moral values now. I think some serious considerations are ignored by this particular section. I guess the Vancouver fire department is the obvious example that springs to mind relating to this. I'd be interested in the minister's response to those comments.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think we've argued the matter of "reasonable cause" a fair bit, and I would advise the member that I haven't changed my mind over the weekend. So we could probably move on as well to the matter of mandatory retirement. I couldn't agree more with the member that it's probably time that all governments took a very close look at this whole question, where it's going in society and the effects it's having on society. I find, from my own point of view in the ministry that I have, to be arguing the matter of mandatory retirement on either side puts me in a rather hypocritical position, because the government is the largest employer in the province, and we have mandatory retirement at the age of 65. I think we've done some innovative things with our public sector in developing early preretirement programs to help our employees, if they wish. It's a voluntary program. I'm told it's a very exciting program of ways in which they can prepare for their retirement. I think more employers should be doing that kind of thing while there is mandatory retirement in place. If you throw mandatory retirement out, then what do you do with all the young people coming up and trying to get into the workforce? It's a very broad issue, as the member describes.

One of the areas that I think is in the member's proposed amendment, I believe again has been largely covered by the events of cases which have happened in the past: that is, the matter of discrimination within the retirement program where companies have arbitrarily had a retirement program at age 65 but felt that maybe they could keep so-and-so on for another two or three years. Then that becomes another discriminatory program, and I think that has been ruled to be discriminatory already. It was before my time in the ministry, but I think it involved one of the fish companies in northern British Columbia.

Similar to the last amendment, I think we're getting to where that member wants to get, again through the way the cases have been going. I know it was a can company, and it might have been Continental Can, which had a case in which they had a kind of height and weight test by which many people, particularly women, were not given employment. Through the process of discussion, boards of inquiry and others, that company now has a skills test which is quite a scientific one and I think does the job. The matter of the firefighters is the next important step, I believe, and that's before a board of inquiry now. I believe the results will be very important. I think we're going to get where that member and I want to get through the means of those kinds of things, and for that reason I'd like to be able to look at the results of some of those boards which are already in place and see where they go, and if they're deficient we may have to make some changes. But at this time I think we're heading in the right direction, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister and I agree — and I suspect our colleagues agree — I don't know why we have to wait for a board of inquiry hopefully to make the right

[ Page 4580 ]

decision, and then if they don't, to perhaps consider legislation later. It seems to me that the act is open and it's a good time to implement the minister's view that skills testing is more appropriate than height and weight testing. Let's just do it in the legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have two amendments on section 9. Shall we hear the minister's amendment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think in fact that the minister's amendment is a new section. It is section 9.1.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the minister has changed his mind and is going to do it in another section now. I'm not sure if that has been filed on the floor. I'm going to be asking to withdraw that, Mr. Chairman, and I want to do it in section 13, I believe it is. I haven't got it printed yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, then we will proceed with the member for North Island's amendment to section 9.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the way we do things in legislation now is that when it's 9.1 — if it were; I know it is not now — it would in fact be as if it were 10; it would be a new section. In any event, that's by the by.

I would like to move an amendment on section 9, which I also introduced to the table the other day.

"By deleting section 9 and substituting the following:

"9(l) Everyone has the right of equality of opportunity based on bona fide qualifications in respect of his occupation or employment, or in respect of membership or intended membership in a trade union, employers' association or occupational association, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no trade union, employers' association or occupational association shall, without reasonable cause in respect of the qualifications of such person, (a) exclude any person from membership, expel, suspend or otherwise discriminate against any person or member, or (b) negotiate on behalf of that person an agreement that would discriminate against him or her contrary to this act.

"(2)(a) For the purpose of subsection (1), the race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, sex, marital status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, political belief, age, family status, source of income or language normally spoken shall not constitute reasonable cause; (b) a conviction or charge for criminal offence or other such summary offence shall not constitute reasonable cause unless such conviction or charge relates to the occupation or employment, or to the intended occupation, employment or membership, of a person.

"(3) No provision of this section relating to age prohibits the operation of any term of a bona fide retirement, superannuation or pension plan, or any terms or conditions of any bona fide group or employee insurance plan, or of any bona fide scheme based upon seniority.

"(4) This section does not prohibit the refusal to continue to employ a person because that person has reached the age specified in a contract of employment or collective agreement as the age of retirement, provided that such contract or collective agreement specifies an age of retirement that is normal for individuals working in positions similar to the position of the person whose employment is terminated; and provided further that such contract or collective agreement provides pension or other benefits sufficient to allow such person to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by the person prior to such retirement."

Mr. Chairman, again we're basically doing two things in this particular amendment. The primary one is the question of reasonable cause. There just isn't any point, in my view, of repeating the arguments relating to reasonable cause that were made all of last week into Thursday night, and again in an extraordinary session on Friday afternoon. I think the arguments have been well made by many members in this House. The position has been taken clearly by the minister that he will not accept it. I just want to say now that my prediction to the minister is that he will find there are too many barn doors for too many horses to gallop through in respect of this legislation because of the failure to include such a provision. We've outlined some of the ones that come to our minds immediately; clearly there will be others that we haven't thought of and others that will develop as time goes on.

[3:45]

Also in this particular amendment to section 9 we deal with the question of mandatory retirement, which we have already talked about. We both agree that this is an issue which contains some very serious ramifications should we make it illegal; but I think we both agree, Mr. Chairman, that we should find some way to move toward that direction.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the member correctly assessed my position, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll pass, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry, that's my mistake. I did not mean at all to pass on section 10. My next section in order was section 9.1, which we're now dealing with in number 13. We're onto an important section, and I almost blew that, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment which you have, and that's why you were ahead of me.

The amendment that I would like to present on section 10.... Section 10, for the record in Hansard, is the first

[ Page 4581 ]

section in part 2 of the legislation relating to the council of human rights. I would like to move that we delete section 10 as proposed in the bill and substitute the following:

"10(1) There is hereby established a commission to be known as the British Columbia Human Rights Commission consisting of five members; (2) the Lieutenant-Governor shall on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly appoint as officers of the Legislature members of the commission; (3) the Legislative Assembly shall not recommend a person to be appointed to the commission, unless a special committee of the Legislative Assembly has unanimously recommended to the Legislative Assembly that that person be appointed; (4) the members of the commission shall receive such salary or remuneration as is determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

We basically intend to create a council or commission with this amendment. I'm not hung up on what it's called. The minister may choose to call it a "council"; we've chosen to call it a "commission." It's a commission that would be independent of the political process in the same way the auditor-general and the ombudsman are, and, incidentally, in the same way the federal commissioner of human rights of this country is independent of the political process and thereby given some opportunity to make public statements about issues without having to make reference to the minister and without having to fall within the guidelines prescribed by either the government or the ministry. Our argument — although I haven't included it in the amendment and could have easily done and perhaps should have done — is that there should also be a fixed term. There should be some security of tenure in the appointment so that whenever it's needed — hopefully it would never be needed — there is a requirement to have the commission say that the government of the day is in violation of the legislation. They would feel free to do so, because they're not responsible to a minister. Also, they would have the security of the fixed term.

Mr. Chairman, in second reading — I think maybe I did it in the hoist motion, I'm not sure which — I spent some considerable time reading the recommendations from B.C.'s ombudsman on that particular point. I also note that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission has made a similar recommendation. It was headlined in their newsletter of July 1982. They suggest that independence for human rights commissions is an idea whose time has come. I'll quote a couple of excerpts from their report: "For if we cannot win and retain public confidence that we will be steadfast in our law enforcement responsibilities, whether the respondent is a private employer or landlord or the government itself, then human rights commissions may well come to be perceived by many as being part of the problem in the struggle for human rights in this country." Later on it says: "With regard to the crucial matter of tenure of office, only Quebec and the federal commissioners have the security of knowing that nothing short of an act of the legislative body will see them thrown out of their offices." And still later: "In terms of reporting, other than the Quebec commission, which like the ombudsman's office enjoys a direct relationship with the legislative body, all other commissions report to a minister." This bill proposes the same approach. Interestingly, no annual report is needed. They go on, and I'm not going to quote all of the other material in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission newsletter.

I wouldn't make this argument for too many areas. The minister was suggesting the other day that I was being inconsistent because I wasn't making it in terms of the WCB. I may change my mind over the years to come, but I have always taken the position that WCB commissioners being appointed by the minister through order-in-council is appropriate. I have no problem with that.

I think the obvious areas for legislative appointment of commissions or commissioners or whatever are quite obvious, at least in my mind. One is the auditor-general, which everybody in this House agrees to. Another is the ombudsman, which I used to think everybody in this House agreed to. It may not be as true now today as it was several years ago. Thirdly, human rights. It's an issue that transcends the politics of the day and transcends the normal agencies of government. It's something much bigger than that. Independence is required in order that those commissioners — or even if it's just the commissioner — have the right and the ability to make comments that may, in effect, be critical of the government. We've seen in terms of both the ombudsman and of the auditor-general, in different ways, that public policy can be improved because of the independence of those agencies.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, having made most of this argument last week during the hoist debate, I will leave it for the moment here.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to say a few words on the subject. I don't have a great deal of confidence that the amendment will be accepted by the minister. It seems to me it's contrary to the direction the government is going. Once upon a time we had for our college boards a mixture of indirectly elected board members and those appointed by the minister. Under Bills 19 and 20 of last summer and fall, we had totally appointed college boards henceforth.

The fact that some of those people were appointed doesn't make them any less worthy, but some of us can't be blamed for suspecting that they may, because they're appointed by the ministry, owe their allegiance to the minister rather than to education or the students. That's the danger. There's always a danger when you have a system in which there is always a suspicion or a likely suspicion that the person is not totally independent. I think that's something that we should be very concerned about.

One of the things we do when we appoint a judge is to ask him, insofar as is humanly possible, to sever all connections with a partisan political group. We want our judges to be independent. I think that's probably an ideal rather than a fact. I'm not sure that many judges could just take off that mantle of being sometimes a very active politician one day and put on their cloak of complete impartiality the next. I've always had difficulty with that one. As a matter of fact, somebody — I think it was Joe Borowski, a member of the Manitoba Legislature and ultimately a cabinet minister for a while — said: "Well, what's a judge anyway? He's nothing but a lawyer who went into politics." That may be partially true. I don't agree with Joe Borowski entirely, I certainly think that he expressed a widely held view.

We don't want obedient board members, whether it's for colleges or for the human rights. We don't want them to be obedient to the minister. We also like to think that maybe they have some qualifications other than being friends of the government. In the United States we have a system in which congressional approval must be given to cabinet ministers

[ Page 4582 ]

because they're not from the ranks of the elected. Occasionally we will find that there are some people rejected by Congress or else they withdraw the application because they turn out to have some pretty substantial financial and other skeletons in their closets. I think that before people can be appointed to this judicial council or commission or whatever it ultimately is to be called, they should be vetted through the Legislature.

Are they prejudiced in certain ways? Do they own large blocks of apartment buildings or mobile-home parks or whatever? Can we be sure that they don't have racist inclinations?

For that reason I think it's worthy of having a look at this business of a person being proposed as a member of this commission, being examined by the Legislature to see if his qualifications fit. Then it's not on the minister's head at all and it's not on the commissioner's head, regardless of what decisions are made. It is then the responsibility of the Legislature and the total membership of the Legislature, regardless of party. If we're going to have a bill before us that pretends to protect human rights, including democratic rights and the right to belong to or support any political party of one's choice, it seems consistent to me that you elect these people to be commissioners, that you avoid preferential treatment of a particular political view, and that you make certain that your appointments don't discriminate in favour of a particular point of view in terms of friends of the minister or friends of the government. I think it's a protection for both the minister and for those people who are likely to bring their complaints before this commission that we look at this amendment with some seriousness, not just reject it out of hand.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, frankly, I think this amendment is out of order. I believe it completely negates the section in the bill, but having debated it this long, I think it's an academic question. The government is not prepared to accept this amendment.

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was allowing discussion to take place because I feel this is a very important bill, and everybody should be allowed to put their thoughts forward. But I would like to point out to hon. members that the minister is in fact correct: the amendment is out of order. For those members who might be interested, I would refer you to the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 508, under the heading "Inadmissible Amendments." Under 1(f) it states that when something is beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.... It certainly is considered that that applies in this case.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to argue the merits or demerits of that particular ruling, nor am I going to challenge it. I took the view that what this section does is set up a commission. I was suggesting that, rather than that commission being responsible to the minister, it be responsible to the Legislature. Without arguing the case and getting into debate about it, I'm not sure that May or whoever it was, on page 55,022 or whatever, is really germane to this particular issue. Section 10 deals with the establishment of a body that governs the legislation, in effect. We're arguing about whether the body should be selected by and reporting to the Legislature or the minister. I'm curious as to why that concept can't be adopted. Quite frankly, the only reason I can perceive, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister wants to have some political control over the direction of the human rights council and is not prepared to have that council operate with the independence that the ombudsman and the auditor-general have. We disagree. We think that agency should have some independence. The minister wants political control. There's a clear difference.

Amendment negatived.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I have an extensive amendment prepared, but I'm not going to move it. I just want to make the case instead. The problem with the complaint section, section 11, primarily is that it's too narrow in terms of those people who can file a complaint when a discriminatory act is noted. For example, the person who is being discriminated against may, for whatever reason, even though they would perhaps be protected by the legislation, not want to file a complaint for fear of retaliation, and would therefore want someone else to do it on their behalf. That is not possible. A discriminatory act might take place against someone from outside British Columbia who is not aware that that is prohibited in this province. A bystander should be able to file that particular complaint on their behalf, but under this legislation it is not.... That seems to me to be a problem. What we're trying to do with human rights legislation in general is prevent discrimination in the future. Both the Code and this act....

Our approach to the issue is such that we're not talking about heavy retribution for those people who are guilty of a discriminatory act. We're talking about attempting to wipe out discrimination. If discrimination occurs in a particular case and a complaint is not filed by the person who is being discriminated against, a bystander, a friend or neighbour — or whatever — can't understand why that provision is not included in the legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I really apologize, but I didn't hear the main question.

MR. GABELMANN: Essentially — to prove that politicians can be brief, Mr. Chairman — the issue is that someone who is not discriminated against themselves, but who watches or witnesses a discrimination, is not allowed to report and file that discriminatory act. Why not?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think they can, provided they have the approval of the person or group of persons discriminated against.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, that's why I need more time to set up the case. It may be that there is someone, first, who fears retaliation.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: People do. Whether there could be or should be retaliation for reporting something, they might fear it and therefore not give their approval. Secondly, it may

[ Page 4583 ]

be a tourist or someone who is suddenly gone and they're reported.... Someone is denied access to a bar. Some American tourist comes up here, isn't allowed into a bar — the person may be black — walks away saying: "Well, that's British Columbia," and disappears. Why shouldn't someone who is there and witnesses it be allowed to make that complaint?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that there may be people who fear retaliation or whatever, but surely the member would agree that sooner or later in the course of investigation that person would have to....

Somebody is going to come before the council or before one of our people who is investigating the complaint and say: "I saw somebody discriminate against somebody on the street down there." Sooner or later that black or that other person or that woman that's been discriminated against will have to give evidence. You can't compel a person to give evidence, so I don't see what you'd accomplish. There is a classic case, one that's been going on for five years — probably six years now — and has to do with blacks who were American tourists. Some of them were discriminated against in a premises in Vancouver, and someone else laid the complaint, as it were. But sooner or later those people had to come forward in order that the complaint could be either proven or disproven. All we're saying is that if you can get concurrence on the part of the person, then that complaint can be laid.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman and members, we have a rather unique group of people visiting us today in the gallery from the community of Kemano. To my knowledge, no one from that community and the school has had the opportunity to visit the Legislature, so I'd like the House to join me in welcoming the grade 7 and 8 students along with Mr. Ken Allison and Miss Debbie McArthur.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there has been brought to our attention the problem that someone who was unintentionally discriminated against may not be able to get before the council. I'm told that that has not been the case, but I accept that we should make it very clear that a person must be able to get into the system regardless of whether or not there was an intentional discrimination. So I propose to amend section 13 by adding the following as subsection 1.1: "The council shall not decline to proceed with an investigation by reason only that there was no intent by the person against whom the complaint was made to contravene this act."

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: People sometimes suggest that there are too many lawyers in politics. I usually agree. This is a moment when I wish I was a lawyer. I am not at all clear, having had five to ten minutes to read it and try to think about it, at the same time trying to deal with the other sections and everything else that's going on.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Trust us.

MR. GABELMANN: That requires no further comment, does it?

I appreciate that the question of intent.... And I'm doing this, Mr. Chairman, because I don't have any alternative. If I don't get up and do this, it's gone and I don't get another opportunity. Without any advice or any time to properly consider it or think about it, what this section does is to tell the council that they have to proceed with an investigation and go through the process that's delineated in the legislation. Even if they're told by the person who is alleged to have discriminated that there was no intent, that it was totally unintentional, they still have to proceed. But does this deal with what seems to me to be the fundamental issue? That is, can they determine that...? Mr. Chairman, with all those caveats I've just made, I want to ask if this allows the council to say that in fact an unintentional discriminatory act or activity was in fact discrimination. What the amendment says is simply that they have to proceed when it's unintentional. There's no clarification of our original concern, which was that unintentional discrimination may not be precluded.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As far as I'm concerned, the answer to the question is yes, it does allow the council to make that determination. The problem that we wanted to make sure was covered — and it's one that seemed to be raised more often than any other — was that under the terms of the bill the council could refuse to investigate a case if no intent was shown. We don't want that to happen. We believe that intentional discrimination is then covered, and by getting it into the system we expect.... In most cases of unintentional discrimination we wouldn't expect, as you have pointed out, that anybody wants retribution or anything like that; they want the thing to stop. Now that we've got it in the system, I expect that in most cases it will be stopped by conciliation between the two parties, rather than any other action being necessary. We hope that's the way most of them will go, and I believe it will be.

MR. GABELMANN: Just so I have it clearly in my mind and the record is clear, what we're doing through this amendment is saying that unintentional discriminatory activity can be investigated and a decision made that unintentional discrimination occurred, and whatever remedies will be proceeded with can occur.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As far as I'm concerned, yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. GABELMANN: They're going by so fast, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4584 ]

On section 16, I have an amendment to propose. Very simply, by deleting subsection 16(1) and subsection 16(3) and substituting the following three. We would have to renumber these, Mr. Chairman, and I haven't done that in the copy I've given to you. By deleting subsection (1), subsection (2) would become (1), and (3) would become (2). Does that make sense to you?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I thought you said you weren't a lawyer.

MR. GABELMANN: I should quit right now if I sound like one.

Let me just take a second on this, Mr. Chairman. The others would be renumbered accordingly. However, I don't think it's going to pass so I'm not going to worry too much about the legal niceties.

Subsection (3) would read: "The persons who are entitled to be parties to proceedings before a board of inquiry are (a) the commission, which shall have the carriage of the complaint, (b) the complainant, (c) any person whom the commission alleges has infringed the right, (d) at the discretion of the board of inquiry, any other person who has a genuine interest in the subject matter of the complaint."

Deletion of subsection (1), taken together with other changes that I tried to make but didn't make.... I'm having some difficulty tying them together when they have to be viewed as a package; when you lose some, the others take on less meaning. But if some previous amendments had passed, it would mean that the commission — or in this case the council — would appoint boards of inquiry, rather than the minister. So there's the point. We want boards of inquiry under the legislation to be appointed by the commission. I don't have any objections at all to having a list of people — who could be chosen by the council or commission — prepared by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but in terms of the appointment of the board, I would argue that the commission or council should have that right.

In terms of subsection (3), basically what we're trying to do is broaden the opportunity for individuals who have an interest in a particular case to appear or to participate in the proceedings following a complaint at the board of inquiry level.

On the amendment.

[4:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hope there won't be very many boards of inquiry, because the changes we have made between this bill and Bill 27 allow the council much more opportunity to settle complaints, rather than have to refer them unsettled to the minister for a board of inquiry. Simply from the point of view of delay, I don't want a lot of cases coming across my desk for decision. The opportunity for settlement will be much better. I don't think there will be very many boards of inquiry in the future. I think that the settlement will come a lot more quickly as a result of that, because boards of inquiry have proved as well to be very lengthy proceedings all too often. So for that reason I don't think the member needs to have too much concern. Nevertheless, I think there should be an avenue for the board itself in exceptional circumstances to say that the case has not been able to be settled and there's a proper reason for it to come to the minister's desk, Mr. Chairman.

On the matter of the other part of the amendment that the member is proposing, I think rather than having the other persons with a genuine interest, which I believe is covered reasonably well in the bill.... There may be some concern about whether or not legal assistance can be made available from the ministry, either through the council or the commission or however. In my second reading remarks, Mr. Chairman, if the member will recall, I assured the member that the practice will remain the same as it has in the past and that the Attorney-General's ministry, in cases at boards of inquiry where it proves to be necessary, will be able to represent the complainant.

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. GABELMANN: Basically, dealing with the disposition of complaints, I first of all wanted to say no, I'm not proposing an amendment. I thought about it and had prepared one, but I'm not going to move it. I'll tell you why: I have some.... As I indicated before, earlier this afternoon, I don't see human rights legislation as being retributive. I shouldn't use those legalistic words. I'm going to fall into that disease.

We're not looking for punishment as much as we're looking for an end to discriminatory activity. That's got to be the underlying philosophy. But I can't let the issue go that the fines have been standardized at the $2,000 level, which for an individual is quite significant. That's a heavy-duty penalty for an individual and is perhaps appropriate, but it is sure Mickey Mouse if it comes to MacMillan Bloedel. That's petty change on a bad day.

While I'm walking a fine line here in the sense that I don't think we should be punishing overduly, $2,000 is not going to be noticed by large corporations, but it will be noticed extremely well by an individual. It seems to me that the concept in the Code of having different levels — in the Code I think it's $5,000 and $2,000 — is an appropriate one. When a group or an organization or a company or a large institution discriminates, then they should be dealt with somewhat differently from how an individual is dealt with. So I guess I'm really inquiring as to why the $2,000 figure is across the board. I don't want to have my concern misconstrued. I'm not arguing for putting people in jail and fining them massive amounts. I'm just arguing about the discrimination in this as opposed to the difference between an individual and a corporation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess the matter of the dollars — and I don't know which dollars you pick.... We've chosen $2,000 because $2,000 is the amount of money under the Offence Act, and that generally covers almost every other area. But we felt we should highlight the $2,000 rather than just say that this is an offence, because there have sometimes been misunderstandings that there are no fines if you just do that. In the Code it said $1,000 for an individual, $5,000 if you're a corporation, trade union or whatever — and I suppose $5,000 wouldn't be much to a very large corporation either. So we just chose $2,000 because it has a similarity with other government acts.

[ Page 4585 ]

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. GABELMANN: I believe the Chair has a copy of this brief amendment. It's to delete section 18 and substitute the following:

"A member of the commission or any person employed in the administration of this act shall not be required in any proceeding or otherwise, except in a judicial review respecting a complaint under this act or in the course of an investigation by the ombudsman, (a) to give evidence, or (b) to produce records relating to information obtained or a communication received in the process of conciliation for the purpose of endeavouring to effect a settlement pursuant to this act, but nothing in the act shall restrict the competency or compellability of such a person in any proceedings with respect to any other evidence."

The first thing about this amendment is that it proves, by the nature of the language, that I do know a lawyer. The second thing I might say, to take a light-hearted moment about this is that I know how my friend and colleague Alexa McDonough feels in the Nova Scotia legislature when she has to attempt to conduct the NDP caucus business all by herself on the floor of the House. I'm delighted to be in her company.

To go back to section 18 and my amendment, there are a number of concerns. But let me deal with one — the one that I think is most significant. It appears to me that the ombudsman can be prevented from investigating complaints concerning the council or the conduct of the minister in enforcing the act. Without saying anything more, I wonder what the intention of the minister is in drafting this bill in respect of the ombudsman's right in terms of the council and the minister's enforcement of the legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think we're precluding — providing that the Ombudsman Act allows him to, and I think it does — his opportunity. We are saying that we don't want him to try the whole thing again and bring forward evidence, maybe new evidence, and some evidence which may not have been taken in public — and that could be a serious problem. That's really the major reason for this particular section.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 18 to 28 inclusive approved.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I believe this would be the appropriate time for me to try an amendment, which I would like to read to the House. Before I speak to it, I'll await the judgment of the Chair, as I think we've had some discussion about this.

MR. REE: Where are we?

MR. GABELMANN: We're between the final section and the title.

MR. REE: That hasn't been called.

MR. GABELMANN: No, we're not dealing with the title. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we delete the enactment clause and substitute.... I want to, by moving this amendment, include a preamble to the bill which would read as follows.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which this province has committed itself; and whereas it is a public policy of British Columbia to recognize the dignity and worth of every person, to provide for equal rights and opportunities to all persons and to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person; and whereas the Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the right of every individual to equality before and under the law and to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination; therefore Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia enacts as follows.... "

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the member, citing Sir Erskine May's 16th edition, page 564, that where a bill as introduced does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one. Therefore the amendment as proposed by the member for North Island must fail.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I challenge that ruling?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee on Bill 11, your Chairman ruled that the committee could not add a preamble to the bill, and the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this, I would like to draw to the attention of the House what is stated in May's nineteenth edition, at page 465: "The purpose...."

[4:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, at this stage the Chair is not capable of hearing argument which was brought forward in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we are once again in danger of setting an untenable precedent, without ever having had recourse to reading the circumstances under which such a ruling ever got into Erskine May. I have the Hansard transcript, for Mr. Speaker and for the edification of the House, in which the Speaker apologizes — back in 1913, I believe it was — when this whole thing came about. In this decision, once again, we are sort of blindly following a very terse, brief — thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker — and cryptic comment in Erskine May, which is founded on actual actions that took place in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

[ Page 4586 ]

The circumstances are not at all equal or identical to what we have here today.

MR. SPEAKER: As all hon. members are aware, matters that arise in committee must be dealt with in committee. While the observations of the member may have some place in debate, unfortunately, hon. member, that debate must take place in committee and before the Chairman has reported.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 17

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

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Human Rights Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill for second reading I have some comments I wish to make.

I am pleased to introduce a major amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act. These amendments widen the eligibility provisions of the existing act, and this will make more British Columbians, including civilian war veterans, eligible for the grants.

It should be made clear to the House that the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act is another move in the government's program of property tax reform. Last year we began by introducing the variable tax rate system, first in the municipal section and then in all sectors. Now we are advancing our reform program by improving this important program of property tax relief. We are extending new homeowner grant benefits to the public at a time in our economic recovery when it is most needed. The central thrust of this legislation is toward providing a watertight definition of the type of residential tenure that qualifies for grants. In theory eligibility is restricted to owners, but in law and in administrative practice the borders between owning, leasing and renting can sometimes be obscured.

Three difficult eligibility questions associated with tenure have recently arisen. The first situation deals with land cooperatives. It occurs when several persons jointly purchase a parcel of land and build individual, detached residences on it. The present wording of the act does not cover eligibility for this type of tenure, although apartment cooperatives, which are substantially similar, do possess that eligibility. The second situation typically occurs when a company owns a single parcel of land and leases individual portions to its employees for housing purposes. This practice is often followed by resource companies, such as Westar mines in Sparwood.

Until this year it was customary that homeowners in this secondary category received homeowner grants, but recent, and legally correct, changes by the Assessment Authority will this year deny those people grants to the same homeowners, unless the Home Owner Grant Act is changed.

The third tenure situation involves 99-year leased dwellings. In the past grants were given only when whole apartment buildings were leased on a 99-year basis. If only a single apartment in a building was leased, then grants were denied. Clearly this was unfair, and the proposed legislation addresses this problem.

I am particularly happy that this legislation extends new benefits to war veterans. The service and sacrifice made by our veterans and their families deserves to be remembered and recognized. Under this legislation every family receiving a Canadian war allowance, whether for military or civilian war service, will be entitled to the maximum grant of up to $630.

Because the homeowner grant is being opened up to accommodate these major changes to eligibility, the opportunity has been taken to make further minor technical changes. These include modification of late claims, prosecution rules and the correction of misleading references.

I am very pleased to bring this forward, and I will welcome any comments that members may wish to make in respect to this very fair, long-awaited and welcome legislation.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I am pleased to state in the House today that the opposition will be supporting this legislation. It is indeed generally a good piece of legislation for which we have been waiting a long time. As a matter of fact, my predecessor, Charles Barber, worked on this 99-year lease issue for a long time, in terms of homeowner grants being granted to those who occupy 99-year lease apartments; I think he started that process at least three or four years ago.

[ Page 4587 ]

We are pleased, certainly in Victoria, because there are a number of buildings with 99-year leases, and homeowner eligibility will certainly be welcomed. The minister is to be congratulated on that particular issue.

We certainly welcome the very positive move that government has made to include those who reside in cooperatives. It's a very necessary piece of legislation and, I think, a good recognition for the cooperative movement that they are homes and homeowners. I know that those people living in cooperatives and the cooperative associations will welcome this piece of legislation.

I'm also very pleased that the government is doing something for war veterans. I think that is welcome. I have something specific to say: it will definitely be welcome in my riding. All in all, we welcome this legislation. It's been a long time coming. I thank the government for that.

Very briefly in passing, I would like to.... It doesn't reflect on this minister, but it has a lot to do with the 99-year lease problem. Maybe the minister can bring it up with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). There is dual jurisdiction here. Now that we've taken care of the homeowner grant problem, there are a number of other issues that have to be taken care of in the 99-year leases. They don't come under anybody's jurisdiction in terms of regulations. The rentalsman, for instance, had no jurisdiction in their disputes. There are all sorts of problems dealing with payment of maintenance and getting the statements of costs. I've written to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a number of times about this particular issue. It's my understanding that it's under review. Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have worked out the homeowner grant problem. I am hoping we can work out the other problems of 99-year-lease buildings. This whole question of leasehold is relatively.... It's not a new idea, but in terms of numbers, they've certainly grown over the last few years. Consequently it means that the government has to look at the whole area. I know it takes time to introduce appropriate legislation, but there are other areas in 99-year-lease buildings that pertain more to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'm hoping we will see legislation dealing with that in the near future.

Generally we support the bill, and we are pleased to see the various sections and the direction of this government.

MR. SEGARTY: I won't take too long, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the 47 residents of Sparwood who were ineligible to receive the grant because of changes in the Assessment Authority Act, I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for bringing forward this piece of legislation and the amendments to the act. I've just got one question for him in terms of it. Will those 47 people be eligible for the grant in this tax year? On behalf of all of them, thanks very much for bringing it forward. I know you've worked extremely hard on it.

MR. REE: Like others, I fully support this piece of legislation, particularly the homeowner's grant being eligible to 99-year leaseholders. In my constituency of North Vancouver–Capilano we have a number of buildings where this situation has arisen. People have owned these strata title properties under 99-year-lease arrangements for some number of years. They pay the same price for the accommodation as for any other strata title or private home. I think they should be entitled to the homeowner's grant. I think the minister is to be commended for bringing it in at this time. I know I've been speaking to the minister for some time about it and encouraging this type of legislation. I think he's to be commended, and on behalf of my constituents I thank him.

MR. MITCHELL: A lot of area has been covered, but there are two areas about which I have spoken on other occasions in this House which have been missed. I would like the government to give serious consideration to them. Basically it is now recognizing people who for one reason or another are no longer in the workforce...on a war pension, and though they are not age 65 when they get the increased grant....

The two groups that I would like to bring to the minister's attention are the victims and casualties of industrial accidents who are on full compensation pensions. They are on a fixed income, and in many cases it's a low fixed income. It's a lot lower than a lot of people who are retired on pensions at 65. We are seeing more and more of the second group because of the stressful times we live in and the change in the business world: the people who are forced into early retirement because of heart attacks and other medical benefits. They are on a fixed pension in many cases. Taking an early retirement pension is less than if they had gone to 65, when they could have collected their pension plus the benefits under the homeowner's grant. Would the minister give some consideration to those who are on a medical — and I stress this — handicap, where they have either taken early retirement or are no longer in the workforce because they are a casualty of an industrial accident and are collecting a permanent medical pension from the Workers' Compensation Board, where they are no longer in the workforce and they have a limited income. Set the allowances with GAIN of a limited income.... I think the other two groups in the community should be given some consideration by the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to express my sincere pleasure with the enthusiasm that this piece of legislation has received, particularly from my official critic. It's very encouraging indeed. I think it would be fair at this moment to say that it just goes to prove that indeed we are a government that does stop to consider the needs of our people. I think that this legislation is very fair to all concerned. I want to express my appreciation to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), who have worked very hard to bring about this legislation, because they are the ones who, through their dedication to doing things that are proper in their communities, have been on top of this and have been encouraging me right along to do this. We also have the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who has had a project in his area that also required this attention. So I want to give credit to these members who have indeed worked very hard and supported me in bringing forward this piece of very fair and worthwhile legislation.

In respect to the cooperatives portion of it, it would be fair to point out that the old legislation did allow for the homeowner grants to be paid to certain segments of the cooperative movement. I would be remiss if I did not point out, however, that this is not my personal endorsement of the particular movement itself. Far from it. Rather it does endorse my position as far as fairness is concerned in society out there. It has been the case that those multiple dwellings under the cooperative movement did qualify but those in a cooperative

[ Page 4588 ]

movement with the single dwellings did not. That is the reason for this change. It's all in the interest of being fair to all those concerned.

The second major portion, of course, deals with the leasing of properties. We know that any one of us here who leases property for 99 years.... In my humble opinion, and obviously in the opinion of others here, this is just as good as purchase. Therefore we felt that it was only fair that these people should qualify. There is no question in my mind that anyone who leases property for a 99-year period is going to place as much value and become as deeply rooted in that property as would those who have purchased it outright. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed with that portion.

Then, of course, we come to that section dealing with war veterans. Again it is a matter of being fair, because in the past war veterans have qualified, with the exception of those who were in the civilian war–veteran category, namely those who were members of the merchant marine during the last war. Mr. Speaker, I felt that while the numbers are not great, in all fairness to them, they should qualify. With this legislation they will.

I have noted the suggestions by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), and certainly I will take those notes with me and give that some consideration. But all in all I am very pleased indeed with the response to this legislation and am very pleased also to move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 25.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
(LAND TRANSFER) ACT, 1984

HON. MR. ROGERS: Bill 25 is designed to allow the transfer of the ownership lands known generically as the Carrall Street yards between one Crown corporation and another: that is, to transfer it from B.C. Hydro to B.C. Place so that the world's fair in 1986 can proceed and so that the original concept of B.C. Place can be lived up to to fruition. The proposed transfer was announced originally by the Premier at the time he announced B.C. Place. In fact, it was somewhat easier to deal with the CPR — at least it certainly didn't require legislation — than it is to deal with Hydro on the legalities of transferring the land, not that Hydro was difficult to deal with. These particular pieces of property are, of course, part of the real estate which secures the original B.C. Hydro bond holdings or actually B.C. Electric bond holdings, and as such this piece of property rather, like a number of other pieces of property, requires an act of the Legislature in order for this land to be transferred without risking the trusteed indentures of the B.C. Hydro borrowing. I have it on the authority of the trustee that this meets with his approval. These old bonds which will mature in the next ten to twelve years are as little as 4 or 4 1/2 percent interest bearing, and therefore is in our best interest to ensure that every effort be made to ensure that we do not violate those particular bonds.

The property in question is defined in the sections of the bill, and it's well known to members as that property that is immediately east of the current B.C. Place site. This rather innocuous little bill should allow this transfer to go ahead. Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, two successive governments, let alone administrations, have been trying to wrest this land from B.C. Hydro into the hands of some other government agency or Crown corporation so it could be developed to its true potential in the core of the city. I know that the minister is as concerned as I am to have this land utilized in a sensitive and creative way so that it's complementary not only to the B.C. Place projects but also to the Chinese garden and the Chinese Cultural Centre projects that for some years now have been the hope and dream of people within that community. That was the proposal made by the New Democratic Party government of 1972-75, and I am glad that one of the steps is finally being carried out by this tardy government; one of the steps to develop this area has finally been decided to be undertaken by the minister. How long have we waited for this?

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You see the arrogance of power? They are amused having kept us all waiting for almost ten years now for this land from Hydro.

There are other specific problems with respect to the financing, the costs and other matters. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be patient, and I'll defer these matters to my hon. colleague from Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, for those kind remarks. I do have some questions about this bill. First of all, I'm wondering why we have this bill. Why do we need legislation to transfer a piece of property from one Crown corporation to another? We've been transferring property from one Crown corporation to another government body yea these many years and I've never seen legislation before required to do this. So I'm wondering why we have a piece of legislation in the first place.

Also I'm wondering how the value of $10 million was arrived at. Was there an evaluation done? Is this supposed to be market value or not? I note that the zoning has recently been changed from industrial to commercial and residential. Is this to reflect market value, or is it not to reflect market value? Is it in fact a subsidy to B.C. Place, which may be all right between Crown corporations? Maybe you should give it to them for $1, I don't know. I'm just wondering how you arrived at the figure of $10 million.

I'm also concerned about the section in the bill which talks about the fact that none of this can be valid without the consent of the holders of the first mortgage bonds issued by British Columbia Electric Co. way back when. They have to have the trustee's consent and authorization. Now I understand that Montreal Trust is the major bondholder for those particular bonds. Is there a possibility of something more being involved here before this can actually be finalized? Is it in fact going to be a cash settlement, or is there going to be some kind of an exchange? Are, for example, those trustees of Montreal Trust going to say: "Well, no, we don't want the cash — we'd like Burrard Thermal"? What protection do we

[ Page 4589 ]

actually have against some kind of a holdup gang from those trustees? That's a very interesting section to be written into this bill: to say that this is all fine and good, we're going to take these 28 acres and make them into the east park residential area, and give part of this as a right-of-way and easement for ALRT All those kinds of things are very interesting, but it's all subject to the discretion of those trustees, who are maybe many and varied; but the majority, as I understand, is Montreal Trust. Do we have any commitment? Does the minister have any firm commitment in writing — anything that's absolute — that ensures this will go ahead without some kind of a holdup far and above the $10 million that is specified?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps if I could deal first with the remarks of the member for Vancouver Centre, the Dr. Sun Yat-sen Garden is being prepared by the Chinese Cultural Centre, and all of the people involved with the Dr. Sun Yat-sen Garden Society — which happens to include myself — of course want this project to go ahead. At the present time B.C. Hydro maintains a gas and electrical meter overhaul shop in this rather prime piece of downtown real estate, and that's one of the things he asked about and one of the things that's certain to be moved.

You asked why we need to do this. At the present time, when B.C. Hydro buys a piece of land, or when a piece of land goes into their inventory or out of their inventory, it is not secured with our present borrowings. All of our present borrowings are secured against the strength of the borrowing ability of the government of British Columbia, but the borrowings done by B.C. Electric were all secured jointly and severally by individual pieces of property. Therefore, legislation is required only when we transfer a piece of property that was originally owned by B.C. Electric. We have had, I think, three or four of these bills in the time that you and I have been in this House. I think you and I have actually forgotten that they've gone through, but they have gone through.

Why do we need a bill? The trustee is not prepared to accept the transfer of this particular piece of land without the legislation. With the legislation, they are prepared to accept the transfer of the land and accept this particular method of doing it, and we are guaranteed on this. There will be no callback from the trustees. The trustees have $40 million worth of bonds secured with about — what? — $25 billion worth of assets, or whatever B.C. Hydro is worth, so they're more than secured. But they would love it, of course, if they could possibly turn in those 4 percent bonds and get something that's more in current value. The bonds have three and, I think, four years to run before they run out, so in three or four years we will not have to revisit this in the Legislature again. The whole matter will never come up again. As the last of the secured pieces of B.C. Electric property bonds run out — after all, it's 25 years ago that these kinds of things were going on — this is the last we will ever see of this kind of legislation. All the current borrowings don't require this. Were a piece of B.C. Electric-purchased property in your constituency, we would require this. If it's a B.C. Hydro piece of property, we don't require this.

You asked about the value. This is the value. Actually, this is a premium over the value at the time of the announcement, and that's when the decision was made. At the time of the announcement, this is more than we paid the CPR for comparable pieces of property. The zoning has not changed, but in all probability the zoning will change for it go ahead with Expo. Of course, that's a determination yet to go.

Why didn't we do it for a dollar? Why did we do it for $10 million? We had to pick.... The shareholders of B.C. Hydro are the same shareholders of B.C. Place. It's not a good precedent to appear to be doing something favourable to B.C. Place. This seemed like a reasonable number that was agreed to by both boards of directors, and that's why the number is here.

I think the bill will just be one more thing we need to pass to facilitate the development, and I think it is the last piece of legislation we will ever need to proceed with this thing. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SKAGIT ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have just a few explanatory comments regarding this bill. I think practically everyone in the province — certainly the members of this House — know that over a period of years, and some very well-conducted negotiations, an agreement was reached to preserve the Skagit Valley, and in return to have compensation from the city of Seattle for the electricity that they use. Part of that agreement was that the preservation of that valley should be done by a commission. Agreement was reached that the city of Seattle, over a period of four or five years, would provide $4 million toward this fund, and the province of British Columbia would provide $1 million. This bill allows for the initial payment of $250,000, the quarter of a million that we're obligated to. Of course, all of that is recoverable from the compensation that will be coming to the government.

This bill enables this commission to be set up. It gives them the power to acquire land. They're not a taxable organization. In effect, the commission will be set up with equal representation from British Columbia and the state of Washington. These people will then have $5 million with which to operate and acquire land to develop that Skagit Valley. The bill enables that to proceed. I might point out that the state of Washington has already passed the appropriate legislation authorizing it on their side. The agreement was signed on March 30 of this year. It is now to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, and that's in the works; it's been taken to Washington. Certainly I'm now pleased, even though I was not in the initial stages, to be a part of this move to preserve the Skagit Valley. This arrangement, I think, points out that when you get down to serious negotiations an agreement can be reached of benefit to the parties concerned and certainly of benefit to the people of this province.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly it's good that the Skagit Valley is to be preserved; I think we can all agree on that. But I think it also points out how difficult and expensive it becomes when you get involved in something that you should

[ Page 4590 ]

never have been involved in in the first place. It indicates the need for long-term and advanced planning and a real careful look at just what we are doing when we make these agreements relative to our water and its use south of the border. The argument has raged long and loud as to the downstream benefits on many rivers; our water in North America generally flows north and south, not east and west. It's something that will continue over the years. I suggest to the minister that he use this as an object lesson for any future negotiations in which he may be involved.

He may be well aware that the federal government has recently appointed Dr. Peter Pearse to do a study of Canadian water, generally. They are sufficiently concerned about the situation relative to water right across Canada and this north south U.S.-Canadian conflict that rages that they are doing a major study for future consideration.

I have some concerns about the amount of the cost in this particular bill. It's all in U.S. dollars, I understand. Certainly for every dollar that the United States will be spending, Canadians will be putting up $1.25 or more to make those matching contributions. It's not quite as good as it looks from the totals that are listed here. It's my understanding that this fund has been established to conserve and protect the wilderness and wildlife habitat, to enhance recreational opportunities, to acquire mineral or timber rights consistent with the conservational and recreational purposes, to conduct studies of feasibility and need of projects, to plan and construct paths, etc., to allow better accessibility into the valley and to remove stumps and snags in Ross Lake and groom the shoreline and do all sorts of things in Manning Park.

[5:15]

Because of that, I'm interested in the makeup of the commission. There is only one person representing the environmental or conservation interests on that commission. It is interesting that the commission is not to be considered a Crown agency, even though it is made up of government representatives, including a minister of the B.C. government. There are to be four people. The other three....

There is to be someone with financial management experience, one with property management and acquisition experience and only one member representing the environmental concerns. Certainly that gives me some concern for all those fine-sounding things they're supposed to be doing. There may not be the clout involved with that commission to do the kinds of things they're talking about as the purpose of the fund.

Also, the appropriation in this bill is $250,000, as I read it, which is just one year. This is to be carried out over a four-year period. We're talking about $1 million, and there's no mention of that. We are also talking about Canadian funds, I assume. I just haven't checked if the accuracy of that appropriation section relates to.... Maybe the minister would answer whether or not we're talking about 250,000 American dollars. Actually, if we're talking about one-quarter of the total fund and not about where the rest of the fund is coming from....

Those are my major concerns with the bill. I think it is a good thing that we have resolved the thing — that's great. But I think the cost has been pretty extensive for the people of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. ROGERS: This Skagit Valley agreement takes me back a bit to more than one meeting with the brothers Royer and all the people involved with the International Joint Commission on the Canadian and on the American side — meetings in Ottawa, meetings in Washington, meetings in Washington, D.C., meetings in Seattle, meetings in my office.

MRS. WALLACE: A million dollars' worth of meetings.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This controversy started only three months before I was born, and it was actually finally resolved.... I wonder how much paper has been used by this Legislature printing the word "Skagit"? It has been discussed for so long. This bill is the icing on the cake, I think, for the last time. We are finally going to do the right thing, which probably should have been done in 1946, just as soon as the so-called energy emergency passed. This resolution is an awfully long time in coming, and I feel particularly good about it, as from my previous involvements with this, I think it gives us some hope that there is resolution to international problems.

Despite the fact that the federal representatives took all the credit for solving this, the real credit goes to the mayor's brother and the Deputy Minister of Environment, who did the hammering out of the deal. The others who stood up in Ottawa and Washington and waved each other's flags at each other certainly had a role to play. But, in fact, the mayor's brother and Ben Marr put this thing together and brought it to the mayor and myself. He took it to the council and I took it to cabinet. That's where it was born, and that's where it has come from.

The moneys that are allocated in this bill are sufficient to make the lake and the area of the valley that is flooded into adequate recreational areas — good recreational areas not just for the purists but for those people who have a little less mobility than, say, the backpackers and the outdoors people who want to get in there to see it. As the lower mainland population continues to grow and the population of the Fraser Valley continues to grow, this thing will turn out to be a really wise investment.

After all of the debate, discussion and effort that people have put in to see this thing come to fruition, I'm delighted that my colleague is able to bring it forward today. I really do believe it is icing on the cake. As the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said, he almost had the problem solved when he was Minister of Environment. I almost had the problem solved when I was Minister of Environment. And the present Minister of Environment hopes to never have to hear about the subject again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My colleague was in this position when much of the negotiation went on, and not much more can be said. I know that my deputy minister now — ours, if we go back a little bit — certainly did a remarkable job on this. We also acknowledged, you may recall, the ROSS committee by environmental award earlier this year, because they had a great deal of input into it.

As far as the commission is concerned, of course, that one other member could well be an environmental representative — a government representative from the Environment ministry, I would hope, and one from the sort of environmental community outside government. I would think the objectives are clear — what the purpose of the committee is — and

[ Page 4591 ]

certainly people with environmental interests can also have management or financial expertise. I'm not too concerned about that. The mission is clear.

The $250,000, of course, as you mentioned, is in U.S. funds. That's to equate it, because they're putting up their money in U.S. funds. So the contributions will be one to four on an equal basis and not dependent on the exchange rate. I think you have to recognize that the money for this is, in effect, coming from the United States — from the Seattle agreement. The reason for the $250,000 this year is to get the thing started out of consolidated revenue. From then on it comes out of the funds as they are received. The funds will not start moving until the agreement is fully concluded.

So certainly I am delighted, as I said earlier, to be involved in this. I think it's a good indication of what can be accomplished, and accomplished in terms of changing with the times something that may have seemed appropriate 30 years ago and is not so appropriate now.

So I am looking forward to a good development of the Skagit Valley for the benefit of all sorts of people so that recreation can be enjoyed as it was anticipated when the decision was made not to flood that valley.

That's about all I can say, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question will be second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 21.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1984

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just briefly on the bill itself, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to discuss a bill like this when we have relatively few ministers of the Crown in the House. I know the section that is coming up very shortly that I wish to discuss, and the minister is not in the House. I was wondering if we could perhaps give the minister the chance to get into the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have had a fairly full briefing on all the amendments. I have asked the ministers to be here, but of course it's fairly short notice and some won't be. If we have a problem with the section that you're concerned with and I can't answer you, then we'll have to do that.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I wanted to discuss very briefly section 12, which was sort of stuck away in a corner of this bill. It deals with ferry tolls, which we discussed, not at length but briefly, during the spending debates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). The minister isn't here. The section reads: "...is amended by adding 'fixing different tolls or rates for different classes of persons' after 'fixing tolls or rates for carrying persons and chattels on a ferry.'" That refers to Highways-operated ferries, not the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

My question to the minister was going to be along the line of asking him to explain that section to us. I'm sure that most people in the House are aware that in this province we have 26 vessels operated by the Ministry of Highways. That's excluding the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We have some ferries with no tolls, inequitable tolls on other vessels, in the view of the residents in some of these areas served by the Highways operated ferries, and these kinds of things. For example, the ministry has arbitrarily placed a $2 toll on bicycles on all saltwater Highways-operated ferries. What's the reason for this? It's cheaper than the motorcycle. It's causing some dislocation. We have examples of people who go down to the ferries — I shouldn't be naming the areas — say, Cortes, Denman Island, Texada, wherever — and they bring their bikes. They usually have a friend in the lineup with a pickup, and they throw their bikes in the back of the pickup. The thing isn't working out. A few people are being penalized for these kinds of things.

I'd like the minister to answer some of these questions. More than that, I'd like the minister to explain to us how they arrive at these tolls. It's not on a mileage basis, quite obviously. We have vessels operating on the coast of British Columbia over greater distances with smaller fares than smaller ferries operating over shorter distances — these kinds of inequities. Of course, on the coast of British Columbia what I hear all over is: why have we got free ferries in the interior and no free ferries on the coast operated by the Ministry of Highways?

I think the minister would do well if he could just amble upstairs — I know he's listening — and perhaps get answers to some of these questions. I have some confidence in the Attorney-General, but I don't think he can answer these types of questions, since he's not directly involved. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) may have some answers. I see he's ready to speak, so perhaps I'll just sit down, and the Minister of Forests can answer my question. What's the purpose of section 12?

HON. MR. SMITH: The purpose of the section is not to deal with the problem that the member for Mackenzie has described, which is the basis of the fare structure as between one part of the system and another. It is to clearly authorize what has been going on in the past. That is, to offer special classes of fares to a special class of persons — namely, commuters. You've got the ferries offering a number of commuter fares that they would perhaps not otherwise clearly be able to authorize unless they get the amendment that permits them to fix different tolls or rates for different classes of persons. That's what's being aimed at here: to clearly legitimize the commuter fares that we now offer to the islands, not to deal with fare structures between salt water and fresh water. The power to do that is already in the act. You quarrel with the policy or you don't understand the clarity of the policy as to why freshwater ferries are free and saltwater

[ Page 4592 ]

are not. But I'm sure you do accept the importance of the commuter fare, which many of our constituents enjoy — probably more that support your side than this side. We are just making it clear that somebody can't come along and impugn or attack a commuter fare. That's the purpose of that.

[5:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If the purpose outlined by the Attorney-General is the purpose, I have absolutely no problem at all with this section, because the commuter fare rates on some of the routes are the only rates that will give the permanent resident a little bit of a financial break at all on the coastal ferries.

I want to clear up one other thing with the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I do understand the background of, the history of and the reason for free ferries, and I'm not knocking them. There may be a reason in the interior. I've never said we should put tolls on them, and I understand that very well. But, just the same, you and I still have to deal with the questions posed by our constituents, Mr. Minister, as to why they have to pay $4.50 to go to Texada Island, when I can go from Nelson to Brown Bay or Big Rock or wherever the thing goes, and get that trip for free. But the minister did clarify that section for me, and I'm satisfied.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what this section does, as far as I can see, is to give the minister the unilateral right of the Crown. So much has been taken from the Legislature and turned over to the government, and now the government is turning its responsibilities over to an individual minister. I would just like to know the reasoning behind this GAIN amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: It was done primarily because there was a conflict between the authority under sections 5 and 9(c). Under 9(c) the minister can, "with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," contract for social services. But under section 5, the minister, without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, authorizes financial assistance for social services. So it deals with that anomaly, which has been an anomaly for some time and which has presented some problems. To do them both without cabinet approval was the reason for it; it wasn't to suddenly create a new ministerial, as opposed to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, matter. I suppose your argument would reach back to why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should do it. If the minister can do it, why should the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council do it? Maybe it should be spelled out in the regulations. It's not possible to spell out in the regulations all the social service contracts and agreements, but that conflict between 5 and 9(c) was the purpose of it.

MR. COCKE: That was a marvellous answer — just absolutely spectacular.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a lawyer's answer.

MR. COCKE: "In order to get it in line with 9(c) or section 5 and all," — that's just absolutely marvellous. I feel quite confident that what the minister says here could have been done exactly in the opposite direction; in other words, you could have brought the other section in line with the section that we're dealing with here, section 9. But I have a tendency to worry when the other government members.... Particularly when you're contracting out and when you're assessing whether or not one should do this or do that with groups outside of government, it strikes me that the cabinet at the very least might be involved in these discussions. I know that government has a lot to do in terms of orders-in-council, but when you give the present Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) the unilateral rights that this seems to, then I still have a bit of a quiver in my solar plexus.

Sections 14 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I note that you can now get married within two days of taking your licence out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a quickie.

MRS. DAILLY: It's a quick one.

I just have a question to the Attorney-General: why? It was three days, now it's two. Maybe pretty soon you won't have to get a licence at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't have to get married either.

MRS. DAILLY: Or get married.

Seriously, Mr. Attorney-General, do you know why that was...?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm delighted to yield to my colleague the Minister of Health, who has great knowledge of this matter.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The amendment simply permits a person to make one visit to the place where they pick up the marriage licence, rather than having to return to pick it up after making application. The licence becomes effective two days thereafter, but they can take it, in effect, with them, rather than making the application and coming back in two days and picking it up. That's the only change.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's one-stop marrying.

MS. BROWN: I'm wondering whether this is the act that needs to be amended in terms of the change of name, because we are still getting a lot of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong act.

MS. BROWN: Is it? Well, since it seems we are having one-stop marriage, I thought you might want to throw everything into the hopper while you're at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MS. BROWN: Aw, too bad!

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4593 ]

On section 24.

MS. SANFORD: There have been a number of problems in recent times with the national dairy plan and with people who have tried to work outside of the milk quota system, and also problems with people who have tried to administer the plan provincially, and that's why we have this particular amendment today.

First of all, because the British Columbia dairy producers felt that they wanted more of the Canadian share of industrial milk, the province of British Columbia decided to opt out of the national dairy plan. I have a question to the minister with respect to that particular move.

I'm wondering if the minister has had any discussions with respect to getting British Columbia back into the national dairy plan. I understand that if there is some flexibility under that national dairy plan, British Columbia producers would very much like to become part of that quota system again. What sort of discussions have you had, Mr. Minister? What sorts of pressures are you bringing to bear to try to get British Columbia back into that system?

I also would like to have an update on the situation that exists in the lower mainland with relationship to the mozzarella cheese plant and the Scardillo operation. Mr. Chairman, for the information of the members of this House, there were five dairy producers who opted out of the entire scheme in British Columbia, circumvented the B.C. Milk Board and the provisions of the quota system, sold their quota but not their dairy herd and are selling directly to a mozzarella plant, in contravention of all of the agreements that have been established over the years with respect to a quota system to ensure orderly marketing and adequate production in the dairy industry.

Those five producers, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, following meetings with the Milk Board, have agreed that they will try to purchase back the quota and get back under the provisions of the Milk Board and the quota system in existence in B.C. But my understanding also is that the legal people for the Milk Board have written to the mozzarella plant people in order to try to collect the penalty that is required to be paid under the provincial statutes.

The legal people for the B.C. Milk Board gave the Scardillo mozzarella cheese plant five days in which to come up with the penalty. The producers or owners of that cheese plant have refused the Milk Board access to any of its books. As of last week, the five days passed and there was no response whatsoever from that cheese plant. Could the minister give me an update on what has happened there and what actions the Milk Board can take under the statutes of British Columbia to ensure that that penalty is paid?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me address the remarks that are relevant to this particular section. If you will grant me some leeway, I will also answer some of the questions that are not relevant immediately to the section.

First, on the section. Before February 1983 we in British Columbia were part of a national milk scheme, which did not provide sufficient industrial quota for us to have a viable milk industry in the province. The Milk Board has determined through long studies that the formula needs to rest at approximately 65 percent fluid quota, for which we need an additional 35 percent in industrial quota. The reason for this amendment is that in the absence of an agreement with the national signatories British Columbia opted out of the scheme. Before we opted out, the authority to control industrial quota was in the hands of the national scheme, and our Milk Board had authority only to manage supply in the fluid section. Since we have opted out of that scheme, this amendment is necessary to provide the local Milk Board with sufficient authority to manage the industrial milk as well. That gives you the reason for the amendment.

I hope the Chairman doesn't listen now — the question of getting back into the system. Although it's not unanimous, I think it is the consensus in the industry that we would rather be part of the national scheme. It has numerous advantages. The Milk Board has received that instruction from the industry and is continuing its discussions with the national scheme to see whether we can find a way in. As you know, a compromise is quite likely the route best advised whenever there is a dispute of this kind. The amount of industrial quota that we need in order to exist is about 6.2 million hectalitres. We are presently producing 6 million hectalitres, and the national scheme has agreed on a loan basis to let us operate at about 5.8. We believe the industry would vote to go back into the scheme at about the 6 million hectalitre level. We haven't reached agreement. We are continuing to negotiate. No one has taken any hard lines, so the reasonable approach to compromise is open to us. There is one advantage, and I trust you'll appreciate the wisdom of this. We have been deleting from the returns to the farmers the penalties for overproduction on the industrial milk, and we have been remitting those penalties to the national scheme so that if we are accepted into the scheme we do not have a whole bunch of retroactive penalties to pay. Further than that, it shows to the federal scheme that we are acting in good faith. It's not like we want out of the system forever; we just want to negotiate in good faith on the basis of what we really need to have for a healthy industry in British Columbia.

[5:45]

On the question of Scardillo, there were five producers who shipped directly to Scardillo Cheese Ltd., and unless they refuse to pay the penalties, there is nothing illegal about them doing what they have done. But, as you know, the penalty is unbelievable. It leaves them, after having paid the penalty, about $7 a hectalitre left for their cost of production, which has to be at least at the $35 level. So far the negotiations with those five producers are also leading to what we believe will be an amicable conclusion. The penalties have not been paid to date; at least, I do not have notice on my desk that they have arrived to date. But the willingness to pay them is there, and that is, I think, a healthy sign.

The reason why Scardillo Cheese Ltd. is having to pay the penalty at all is because under the Milk Industry Act it is the first receiver who is responsible for the collection of those penalties. Normally, the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Cooperative Association or Lucerne or Foremost are first receivers and are responsible, and Scardillo is the first receiver and responsible for its collection. It's not resolved at this moment, but we believe resolution is not far away.

MS. SANFORD: The minister didn't answer a couple of the questions I posed, and I really would like to pursue this. What options are open to the Milk Board if in fact the Scardillo plant does not comply with the request to collect and pay that penalty? They have not been that cooperative, as I understand it. They have refused to allow any of the representatives from the Milk Board to look at any of their books,

[ Page 4594 ]

as I understand it. The lawyers have sent letters; those have not been responded to, and this is in spite of the willingness you report of the producers to pay that penalty. What steps can the Milk Board take under the statutes of the province against that company if in fact they do not comply?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: First of all, with regard to the attitude of the first receiver, the attitude over a four-year history has been very good. Scardillo has made all of its payments on time. It's only during this time when there is a period of unrest in the milk industry and there is this dispute that Scardillo has been reticent to open its plant and books as wide as that. As soon as a resolution is apparent, the willingness, which there appears to be on all sides, will be the overruling factor. However, the courts are open to the Milk Board if, indeed, compliance is not found willingly.

MRS. WALLACE: Just the courts?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing the Mineral Act Amendments here. I have a question for the minister. We know how important the placer operations in the province are, particularly in the summer, but I want to read the little thing here that supposedly explains section 26. "Section 26 clarifies that an order extending the time for doing something under this Act can be made after the time for doing it has expired." I have a number of questions. What are we doing? What do we mean by "doing it" or "doing something"? I think this could leave a lot to the imagination of the Legislature, so I wish the minister would clarify section 26.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Atlin probably already knows, there are requirements under the Mining Act and under the other acts to have filed certain records of work done. There's a limited window in which you can file the time for which that work was done. That window was closed this year because of the labour disruption with the BCGEU. Virtually all of these amendments are there to accommodate that particular anomaly. I would propose that at some future time the minister has the discretion to be able to say: "There was a reason the man couldn't get in and file his normal work." As you know, people involved in this type of industry have a little difficulty getting their paperwork done at the best of times. In this case, we had to do it to accommodate them, and they would be the very first ones to admit it, my friend, let me tell you, or ask the man sitting beside you.

MR. NICOLSON: As a paid-up member of the Chamber of Mines of Eastern B.C., I will not let the minister's statements go unheeded.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, this section that we're dealing with now is the Motor Vehicle Act. To whom do I address the question? The Attorney-General? Okay.

This amendment to subsection (4) strikes out "7 days" and substitutes "14 days" with regard to a dispute by a resident. If you're disputing a traffic violation is that the postmark? Let's say you're mailing something from Atlin. It could take longer than 14 days to get to Victoria. Is it the first day that you've posted the letter and it's stamped and says "May 7," or do you take it by the 14 days if it doesn't arrive in Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH: It's far too short now, and a mess, because, as I recall the ticket provision, you have to deliver to the clerk of the court your notice of intention to dispute within seven days, and whether that is interpreted as the postmark — which you can't read on a lot of the mail now — or when it actually gets into the office or the hands of the clerk is again in doubt. It gives people, particularly the transient violator, no time to get any advice or to file a dispute. So this will improve it immeasurably. I think that the rule is that it has to actually be in the hands of the clerk and not postmarked. There was a case which brought the Chief Justice recently to make a comment that the provision was possibly in violation of the charter as there wasn't enough time to appeal. So we've doubled the time, but I don't know whether that's adequate.

I would speak longer, because my colleagues wish me to and are urging me on, but I'm pretty well finished and I'm straining to find more words to explain the intention of the section.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.