[ Page 7133 ]

CONTENTS

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Mr. Hanson –– 7133

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Mr. Howard –– 7133

Mrs. Wallace –– 7135

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7136

Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7136

Mr. Lauk –– 7136

Ms. Brown –– 7137

Mr. Cocke –– 7139

Mr. Hanson –– 7141

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7141

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Committee stage 7142

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this morning are three gentlemen who serve our province through their involvement with the Agricultural Land Commission, and I would like all hon. members to make most welcome this morning: Mr. Ian Paton, Mr. Elli Framst and Mr. Bob Murdoch.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In moving second reading of this bill — which I know in my sleep — it really could be described as paving the way for some good international business in British Columbia. Foreign commercial arbitration, traditionally, has taken place in a number of European capitals, and very little of it has come to North America. There is some in New York and virtually none on the west coast of North America. Since the patterns of world trade have been shifting toward the Pacific Rim in the last four or five years, a number of new centres for international commercial arbitration have opened in the last year; there's one in Melbourne, Australia, another in Hong Kong and one in Kuala Lumpur. These centres cannot meet the needs of international commercial arbitration involving American companies and Pacific Rim companies, or involving Common Market countries and Pacific Rim countries. Those arbitrations are ideally suited for a neutral country in North America like Canada.

Why hasn't this work come to Canada before? Well, one of the principal reasons has been technical and legal — having to do with international law — and that is that Canada has not recognized the New York Convention of 1958 for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. The reason why it hasn't recognized it is dim and historic, but what is encouraging is that the Canadian government now — Mr. Crosby — only three weeks ago in Ottawa announced to an international trade seminar that Canada would indeed recognize the convention. British Columbia establishing, as it....

HON. MR. GARDOM: About time.

HON. MR. SMITH: About time, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations so correctly observes.

Canada now has the support of all the provinces for bringing in companion legislation, and the first province off the mark is British Columbia, which will also be the first province in Canada to have an international commercial arbitration centre. Ours is opening in May of next year and being highlighted with an international conference on arbitration which will be held in Vancouver on May 12, to follow a similar meeting in New York and to coincide with the second week of Expo.

So if this bill is passed, we will be able to recognize foreign arbitral awards in this jurisdiction when the Canadian government adopts the convention. That will mean that people will come in here and have arbitration awards knowing that these awards and awards from other jurisdictions can be enforced in Canada and in British Columbia.

It is very positive legislation, and I greatly welcome the support of the members on both sides of this House.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. It derives from a United Nations decision in 1958. It's almost 30 years overdue. We have had discussions with people with respect to a similar arrangement that exists in the great Labour Party government of Australia, who recognized some time ago — and the Attorney-General mentioned Melbourne — that they had to understand the legal system of Japan and other Asian countries so they could protect the contracts between the signatories — the principals — in the Australian industrial community and their Asian customers.

So we certainly agree that this is a positive move. It's long overdue, and we'll support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further comment, hon. members?

Hearing none, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading. According to the practice of the House, this matter is probably best addressed at committee stage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think what the Attorney-General says is quite accurate, although it may be his opinion — that is, that this bill is more suitable to examination in committee because it contains or seeks to amend a number of statutes.

However, there is a very fundamental and important question involved in the bill that needs to be examined in that light. In this segment of the session so far, we have had perhaps a dozen bills on the agenda — kind of a weak, insipid agenda, if I could pass that thought across to the government. Not a single, solitary piece of legislation that we've seen so far is designed to deal with the economy. Not a single, solitary bill involves job creation — just a lot of leftovers or second thoughts or accommodations to try to deal with housekeeping matters.

That's why I say it is a weak and insipid agenda that we have to deal with. But this Bill 70 is an exception to that because it is a bill that has, as a part of it in any event, a reference to jobs. That I think is important. But it isn't a question of job creation; it refers to job depletions. It refers to

[ Page 7134 ]

the potential loss of jobs in the forest industry in this province. It will permit an arrangement to continue to exist and to be expanded upon that will see fewer people employed in the forest industry than is the case right now.

So the one piece of legislation that the government brings forward in this section of this session to deal with jobs is designed to reduce jobs, is designed to put people out of work, is designed to increase the rolls of the unemployed more than it is designed to create jobs. That's why I say it is fundamentally important that we examine that question in its second reading.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, this year — and when it is over I'm sure the statistics will not change measurably — the production of timber in the forest industry has been as high or higher than it has been for quite a number of years. Peak production of timber — productivity in many companies has increased — but the number of people employed in the industry has decreased. So while production and productivity of lumber products is up, employment is down. The IWA tells us that they've got 10,000 fewer people working in the forest industry than was the case a couple of years ago, and productivity continues to increase.

To give you just an example of round, broad figures about the MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. mill at Chemainus, it was identified by Mac-Blo as being old and obsolete and worthy of being shut down.

MR. REID: Run down.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, really?

MR. REID: Yes. Have you gone to have a look at it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey will be given every opportunity to debate in second reading. The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: Well, let's hope he doesn't take advantage of it, because he never makes anything sensible in the way of a contribution to debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Well, there's an example of it right now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: I've been up to that mill; you haven't even seen it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps if we can avoid the heckling we can also then become relevant as we debate Bill 70. The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: So about MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., let me repeat this so that the…is it the third member for Surrey...?

MR. REID: First, second and third.

MR. HOWARD: Do you hear that, Rita? He's the first second and third member for Surrey.

The Chemainus mill was identified by Mac-Blo as being obsolete and worthy of being razed to the ground and put you of business, People in that area were upset about that, naturally, and justifiably brought the right amount of pressure to Mac-Blo, who said, "Okay, we'll rebuild the mill, " which they did. When the old mill was running, it had in its employ something in the neighbourhood — and I use round figures — of 600 employees; it was somewhat less than that. Right now, with three shifts operating at approximately 65 workers per shift, there are a couple of hundred people employed. The production of the mill is about the same as it was before.

MR. REID: It's higher.

MR. HOWARD: Now my friend tells me it's higher. Like you told him, Mr. Speaker, he'll have every opportunity to impart this information to the House in a very formal way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: I do really need some protection from the irrelevant, inane interruptions from the second member for Surrey.

So he tells me that production is higher now than it was before. Parts of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this bill deal precisely with that question, and that's what I am getting to.

So the Chemainus mill says: fine, we'll have the same production; we'll employ one-third fewer workers –– 400 people gone. The question we have to address when we were dealing with amendments to the Forest Act is: what is the purpose of public policy if it isn't to create a legislative framework that will take account of those 400 workers who lost jobs at Chemainus, plus the 10,000 others in the forest industry who lost jobs as a result of alterations and restructuring of the forest industry? This is the point I'm seeking to make. If there are amendments to be made to the Forest Act, then they should not be these kinds of amendments, because these kinds of amendments destroy job creation possibilities in this province. This kind of amendment does that.

The kinds of amendments the government should be bringing forward are amendments that talk about the value of the small operator, the small logger, the small sawmill operator. There should be a legislative framework within which that person can feel comfortable and helpful. You know that, Mr. Speaker, better than I, coming from the area you come from. For those who might at some time or another read Hansard, perhaps I should indicate that it is the Deputy Speaker who is in the chair, and he comes from Prince George; I'm not talking about the constituency of Delta. He knows the forest industry as well as or better than anybody else, and he knows that a small operator, small logger, small sawmill operator will employ more workers per dollar of capital investment than will a big corporation.

This bill and this proposed amendment to the Forest Act is designed to assist the large corporation, not the small operator. He knows that small loggers and small operators spend nearly all of their cash flow, and all of their money in the community within which they work and within which they function. Very little of that money goes outside of the community within which they operate, which is not the case with large corporations that have to maintain head offices or pay dividends to foreign shareholders, like B.C. Forest has to do, like Mac and Blo and Noranda would have to do if they ever start making any money. The small operator spends that money locally, and this bill does not take account of that. We

[ Page 7135 ]

know that the smaller logger and the smaller sawmill operator, when there is some economic difficulty in the lumber industry — as there is from time to time — tend to employ their workers for longer periods of time. It's more of a familial operation. Because they are part of the social fabric of the community, they tend to do a better job than does the large corporation.

Bill 70, and that provision of it which seeks to amend the Forest Act, seeks to give a greater amount of control to large, integrated forest companies, to the detriment of the small operator, the small logger, the small sawmill operator, and to the detriment of the potential for job creation in this province. It seeks to permit the holder of a tree-farm licence — or more, if the company holds more than one tree-farm licence — or the holder of a combination of timber-sale licence or forest licence, or timber-sale harvesting licence, to apply to the minister to restructure those holdings, those tenures; to restructure the tree-farm licence boundaries and carve pieces out of it that they don't want, that are not suitable to that company's activities, and to include in a new tree-farm licence quota that they'll have within a forest licence, a timber sale or a timber-sale harvesting licence — all without public hearings, as is the case if it was a straight tree-farm licence application, but all designed to accommodate the desires of the large integrated forest companies. When we do that, that does not necessarily and does not always — in most cases does not — suit the public interest. It suits the private corporate interest — and I don't knock them for pursuing a private corporate interest; that's not my complaint.

I know that Westar has to have, as its prime motivation for what it does, its balance sheet. It has its obligation to its shareholders. That's the theory; that's the way the thing functions. Shareholders of Westar are one only: BCRIC, the friendly company of the Premier. I don't fault those companies for doing what their balance sheet demands they do. One may express some thoughts about the fact that they permitted themselves.... For instance, the large — I'm not talking particularly about Westar — integrated forest companies over the last few years permitted themselves to get into a very untenable debt-equity ratio situation, in which all of the cash that they can generate goes out to service an extraordinarily large debt compared with the amount of equity that they have. That puts them in a very difficult position. We know, partly as a result of that, that the large integrated forest companies, just broadly and generally speaking, do not earn a sufficient amount of money to be able to stay ahead of the game in terms of paying that interest. We know that their interest rate coverage earnings are out of whack. They're one-third what they should be in order to have a healthy situation.

This bill, with the proposed amendments to the Forest Act, is accommodating the large integrated forest companies. Public policy is now saying, as far as this government is concerned: what you, the large integrated companies want, we'll give to you; we'll let you have it. My complaint is not with the Norandas, the Mac-Blos, the B.C. Forest Products, the Domans and that sort of thing. They're functioning in the way they should be functioning. Maybe the shareholders don't think it's that way, but they are functioning as a corporation within our system.

My complaint is with this government that brings in a piece of legislation that says: "We will now let you, as a holder of a TFL — and if you hold these other tenures as well — simply make an application to restructure your holdings so that you get the best economic advantage out of it. Not so the general public gets the best economic advantage out of it, not so the general public benefits as a result of potential job creation, but so that you the integrated corporation, your interests, are served."

This is what I might loosely call a Westar amendment. It seems so suitably designed to accommodate Westar. I read the section in detail — section 3 — and I could see Westar all over that particular section. Knowing how they operate and what they have in the area: the northwestern part of the province with TFL No. 1 and two forest licences, one in each of two separate timber supply areas.... This is designed to suit whatever that company may want to do. It's also designed to assist other companies as to whatever they may want to do.

It will permit a continuation of what is now highgrading of the forest industry. It will permit a continuation of holders of TFLs or people with quotas under forest licences being able to go in, take out what they consider to be the merch timber for their purposes — the best trees, the best logs — long-butt it to suit themselves, buck it up to suit themselves, and leave the rest of it in the bush as a fire hazard and an impediment to future reforestation of those areas. For what purpose? Not for the purpose of creating jobs, Mr. Speaker, but for the purpose of accommodating their own balance sheet.

[10:30]

1 say it's wrong policy when a government, so blatantly and openly, comes along and says: "Our purpose in life is to adjust government policy to suit the conveniences of a particular segment of society." In this case that segment is the large integrated forest companies, and that's why I started off with the thoughts saying that this is a job-reduction piece of legislation insofar as the Forest Act segment of it is concerned. It is a shameful day when that is the only thing that is on the plate during this portion of this session of the Legislature; the only thing on the plate relating to jobs is one which will see that jobs are lost in the forest industry, not created.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to add a few words to what my colleague from Skeena has said. I am concerned that the minister who is really responsible for this bill is not in the House to hear these remarks and perhaps consider the impact that they may have upon our economy in British Columbia. In fact, the Attorney-General has become the stand-in for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

My colleague referred to the Chemainus situation, and certainly that was one which caused a great many problems in the area I represent. I am convinced that without the kind of pressure that was launched by the community there, we would not have seen that new mill put in place in Chemainus. It is a good mill; it turns out a specialized product. You know, finally that company has recognized — and is somewhat surprised, in fact — that by putting in that facility it has been able to turn a profit right from the very first quarter of operation. I think that speaks a lot for the possibilities. Now my colleague has pointed out there are only a third of the people working there, but there is room for expansion.

If we are going to make these kinds of changes to the Forest Act to allow companies to concentrate all the best forest land into a tree-farm licence and turn back to the public domain or under a forest licence the land that has been desecrated by logging.... If we are going to give them that kind of option, which I don't think we should be doing, then there have to be companion requirements. There have to be

[ Page 7136 ]

requirements to build those other two mills in Chemainus — for which they have plans on the drawing-board — for further processing. Each one of those other two mills will put another 200 people to work, and we will get up to the 600 that we had working there before.

To just give carte blanche to major companies to play around with our land base, to take out of the TFLs — as we did before — the land that they didn't want and put it under a forest licence, and now to put into the TFL high-quality, productive land, which is what will happen, and turn over under forest licence, which is a much looser tenure, the land that has been desecrated, is certainly not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. To do that without any requirements.... Believe me, I know that under those TFLs.... I learned this very difficult and hard lesson during the Chemainus problems, where we tried to persuade them that under their TFL they were obliged to build that new mill in Chemainus. Those tree-farm licences are simply a mishmash. They go back to the very first tree-farm licence, and they amend and amend, and there is no way that you can insist that that be done — because they have capacity somewhere else, they have this, they have that. Those are very poorly drawn, and they continue to be poorly drawn, and they have just been renewed in the matter of the last five or six years for another 20 years. So we have that same situation continuing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If we are going to bow to the forest companies and give them this kind of carte blanche to do what they like with our forests, then certainly we should be putting some provisions in there that will ensure that they build the kind of mills and do the kind of further processing that will bring jobs into this province instead of just going in with a highly mechanized mill and establishing a production facility that doesn't employ the number of people that should be employed in that area. If they don't have a public conscience, which I don't think large companies do.... I think they are there for one thing, and that is to make profits. And that's probably their purpose; I'm not knocking that. But we as a government, as the people's representatives in this Legislature, have a responsibility to the people of this province, not to those major corporations. To simply give them carte blanche on our forests without providing anything else is a sacrilege, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

We have a responsibility to the people of this province to ensure that they have jobs, not simply to ensure that private corporations have the best use of our forests for their own purposes, to do with what they like. That's what is and has been happening. This is simply going to make that happen much more, and bring greater control of our forests and a much greater degree of the good land into private hands, and we the people are going to be left with the costs of replenishing the land that has been destroyed. We the people are going to be left without the jobs that should be there if those companies are to have these kinds of rights.

This is a shameful piece of legislation. To be the only piece of legislation coming into this House which has anything to do with our resource base and our basic industry indicates to me that this government really does consider forestry a sunset industry, and is doing the best it can to phase it out as quickly as possible, without any regard for the people who work in that industry. In my constituency it represents 90 percent of our economic base. This piece of legislation is a disgrace, and certainly should not be on the order paper.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 4), 1985, 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. SMITH: As acting House Leader, I call Bill 33.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: With my other hat on, I move second reading of this bill, and I'm going to make some introductory remarks. I know that my friend over there, the member for Burnaby, is going to join me in saying some constructive things about what is a first step to bring in legislation that amends a number of laws in this province which not only need to conform with the Charter of Rights, but need to be brought into the second half of the twentieth century.

The coming into force of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to have — indeed is having — a significant impact on our courts and our Legislatures, and upon the citizens of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Attorney. In looking under the orders of the day, it appears that the second member for Vancouver Centre adjourned debate on Bill 33. Should the Attorney speak on this bill, it would be in closing the debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must say that that's correct, and I'm very pleased to see the second member for Vancouver East here, and to acknowledge him and recognize him and see him looking so shiny and bright and effervescent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Attorney, that's not a proper point of order.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really do ask the Speaker not to interrupt anyone who's throwing bouquets over to this side of the House. It happens so rarely that I don't think it's appropriate to interrupt. At least let him get out the 10- or 15-minute flow of encomium that he's been keeping to himself all this time.

What bill is this?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the white book.

MR. LAUK: As I was saying before, we most recently adjourned this bill to this day. This is a series of charter amendments to various provincial statutes, presumably to bring them in line with the amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights, with equality provisions. There are many areas within provincial law that have not been addressed by this bill, and they should be.

[ Page 7137 ]

If the purpose of the bill is to bring British Columbia law into line with the new Charter, then we think the government has not looked hard enough at other statutes, practices and regulations. For example, I feel there is not sufficient positive legislation being brought about as a result of the equality provisions to meet with the spirit and the intention of the charter section of equality rights. One of the amendments — that's section 104 — has to do with the Police Act, and appropriately I want to bring up a serious situation that is causing a number of citizens in British Columbia grave concern.

A few days ago an elderly woman was walking across Fourth Avenue, I think it was, in the city of Vancouver, and she was struck down by a speeding police vehicle. The Attorney-General purported some time ago to provide guidelines to police forces in hot-pursuit chase situations. I think the Attorney-General should be aware....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's under section 104 of the bill — the Police Act — and I bring it briefly....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I do not intend it to be amusing. I want the Attorney-General to look carefully at whether or not his guidelines are being followed, or whether his guidelines should be improved.

It seems the police were chasing a teenager in a stolen vehicle. Surely it isn't worth the life and limb of citizens if the police travel at 60 miles an hour down residential streets chasing a stolen vehicle. That's hardly within the guidelines intended by the Attorney-General, and if they were not within the intended guidelines, the guidelines should be expanded to include situations like that. What are the relative values that we have in these kinds of situations in our society? Is it so important we catch a teenager who just went for a joyride that we have to knock down an elderly woman on a crosswalk? It doesn't make any sense at all. Our policemen are not being properly trained in this regard. They've been watching too much of this American television nonsense — The French Connection and all of that sort of nonsense. Let the guy go; you'll get him again. It's not worth endangering the lives and safety of our citizens. I ask the Attorney-General to look at that.

[10:45]

Under the Vital Statistics Act, I was not given an opportunity because I was out buying my Vicks cough drops when the argument took place in this chamber with respect to naming of children and changing of names. Has the debate been adjourned?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Committee stage.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll tell you, talk about a dictatorial government! I've never heard of such nonsense: telling people how they can name their children. What utter nonsense! What arrogance! What…! I'll take it up in committee, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'll defer to the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in 1879, when women were first granted the vote, a suffragette, in commenting on that occasion, said: "It is simply the opening of another door, the passage into a larger freedom." I think that's really what we can say about section 15 of the Charter — that it is simply the opening of another door. It is another small step we are taking toward realizing our full equality as full citizens, not just in British Columbia but in Canada. It is not the end, of course, and I think that when the minister introduced the legislation, he made it clear that, in fact, he has just taken a quick look at the legislation and seen a number of pieces of legislation that need to be brought into line; and that we are going to see this as an ongoing process, and in time more bills will be brought into line with section 15 of the Charter.

I think we should say that we are pleased that the term "illegitimacy" is finally being abolished. We've recognized for a number of years that there has never been any such thing as an illegitimate child and that it was an archaic ideology which had no place in the twentieth — or twenty-first — century. We congratulate the government on removing that whole concept from the law.

We are also pleased with the removal of interspousal immunity — that it is now possible, as a result of this amendment, for battered women to sue their husbands for assault and battery, something which was not possible heretofore. Also, in the event of automobile accidents or other forms of accident including both members of the family, husbands can now sue their wives, wives can now sue their husbands and insurances covering those kinds of things can be settled.

We are also pleased that all distinctions in property law and property rights involving men and women are removed and that they are in fact going to be treated equally. On the other side, we congratulate the government for allowing widowers to gain the same benefits from workers' compensation as widows, and allowing husbands to take the surname of their wives if that is what they want to do.

We regret, however, that the very important area of pensions was not touched upon in this piece of legislation. We have said on the floor of this House a number of times that we are not going to be able to deal with the poverty among older women which is so prevalent in this country through welfare or income assistance. There are only two ways in which we can really attack poverty: one is through equal pay for work of equal value and the other is through being treated fairly under pension legislation. The whole area dealing with pensions, whether it is the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act, or the Pension (Teachers) Act.... All of those pieces of legislation needed to be dealt with in this section 15 and were not, Mr. Speaker. Pensions still discriminate against women because women have the good fortune to live longer than men do, basically because we take better care of ourselves: we eat better; we don't smoke; we go to bed at a reasonable hour at night; we eat our crunchy granola and clean up the vegetables on our plate. We do all those good things, and we live longer.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, something orange, something green.

[ Page 7138 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we do that too; and I'm glad that that was not affected by this piece of legislation. But as a result we are penalized under the existing pension laws. I think that that is something the minister should have taken into account, and amended the pension acts which I mentioned so that we do not have to contend with different and differential actuarial tables, which establish different pension classes.

The other area which was not dealt with was the whole concept of equal pay for work of equal value. I certainly hope that this is one area, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General is looking at very seriously, along with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) and the other ministers in the cabinet who have something to do with the whole business of wages that women earn.

It is not possible for all women to be moved into non-traditional jobs. If you were to do that, who would then do the traditional jobs? Also, the traditional jobs which women do have great value. They are essential and they are important, and the wages should reflect that fact. At this point they do not. The whole concept of paying equal wages for the equal value of the work which women do is something that should have been dealt with under this particular charter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I'm sorry that the Attorney-General did not do a better job of looking at legislation which affects disabled people; that in fact the whole area of the physically and mentally handicapped hasn't been touched, except in one matter: permitting, under the Employment Standards Act, that disabled people be paid below the minimum wage, in sheltered workshops and in other places, if an employer would like to do so. That is not the kind of recognition that disabled people were looking for. They wanted to be able to serve on the jury; they were hoping that the Jury Act would have been amended. They were hoping that the Election Act would have been amended. They were hoping that they would have the right to work for the minimum wage, and to negotiate even wages above that, in terms of employment. Instead of that, we find that it is now legislated, and in law, that they can be paid less than the minimum wage. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we have one of the lowest, if not the lowest, minimum wages in all of Canada.

Disabled people were very disappointed that they were not included in some of the positive changes introduced in this piece of legislation. They would have liked to have been guaranteed equal access to the education system and to some of the other protections which women now enjoy underneath this act. I think it's unfortunate that because they could not mount the kind of lobby and the kind of public opinion support on their side that women did, the Attorney-General did not treat them with the same amount of concern and respect which he afforded to women under this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the trade unions also have some concerns about this legislation. What the act does, of course, is to throw everything into the courts. Instead of politicians and the elected members now being the ones to decide on vital issues, the judges are going to be making those decisions. What the labour movement feels is that that is not always the forum of best interest for them; that in fact courts and judges have a long history of being unsympathetic to labour and to labour's cause. So they have some concerns about how they are going to be treated in the courts as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, one of the Ontario public service employees' unions.... Peter Warrien, one of their researchers, maintained that section 15 can also be used as grounds for striking down restrictive covenants, contracts denying basic collective bargaining rights to groups like teachers, nurses and university professors. I am not sure whether this is correct or not, so I'm putting it in the form of a question to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General, in closing debate, assure us that section 15 of this act cannot be used by the courts as grounds for striking down restrictive contracts, denying basic collective bargaining rights to groups like teachers, nurses and university professors? Because that's one of the theories that has been put forward.

Mr. Speaker, Professor Reuben Hasson of Osgoode Hall says that the chances of women and minority rights being able to benefit from the equality provisions of the act are limited by the fact that the Charter only applies to situations involving government and public agencies. That is the issue which I would like to raise. In fact, so many of the discriminatory rules are enshrined in regulation rather than in legislation that there should have been some indication from the Attorney-General as to whether the regulations are being looked at.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can think, for example, of the human resources legislation in which the legislation sounds fair enough, but the regulations embody discrimination based on age, marital status and a number of different areas. They're not in the act; they're in the regulations. This piece of legislation does not touch the regulations.

Again, I want to pose another question to the Attorney-General. Are the sections of this act going to be broadened to include regulations? Are regulations in the GAIN legislation and other pieces of legislation being looked at? Will they come under the jurisdiction of this particular act so that discrimination based on age in giving out income assistance, discrimination based on place of residence, number of months on income assistance — those kinds of discrimination — can be dealt with under this piece of legislation?

When section 15 of the Charter comes into effect, the ensuing court battles will continue for many years, and we recognize that. The degree to which a section actually serves the interests of women as well as other disadvantaged groups in our society will depend entirely on the outcome of the judicial process. What we are hoping is that this bill will be a signal to the courts, a signal to the judges, that the government is on the side of equality rather than the other way around. We realize that the government cannot control or influence the decisions of the courts, but we feel that the Attorney-General, through this piece of legislation, is signaling the commitment of the government to equality, and hope that he will continue to send that signal forth so that we shall have some decisions brought down embodying the true spirit of equality, which is what the Charter is all about.

Even when we look at section 15(2) of the legislation, which we welcome with enthusiasm because it protects the principle of affirmative action, we are cautious about this. We recognize that it can be used — as Paul Scott, a consultant with the federal government's affirmative action directorate, explained to us — to more firmly entrench the notion of systemic discrimination in the law. In other words, what Mr. Scott has told us is that employers can now impose arbitrary

[ Page 7139 ]

standards, such as height and weight or proficiency in a language, as necessary qualifications, thereby effectively discriminating against traditionally disadvantaged groups.

[11:00]

I am sure that the Attorney-General took that into account when he put section 15(2) into this piece of legislation. Maybe in closing the debate he could tell us if he has also put into place some kind of machinery to monitor section 15(2) to ensure that Paul Scott's predictions do not, in fact, become reality, that this section is not subverted to work against, rather than for, the front end aspirations of women, that in fact it does not entrench systemic discrimination into the law, but actually acts to open up and give access to the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, younger people, older people, ethnic and racial minorities and women, in terms of moving into the labour force and moving up and through the system at a faster pace than has been the case heretofore.

I just want to say that I recognize that despite all of its shortcomings and despite the fact that it does not do for the disabled nor for trade unions and for other groups the kind of job that we are hoping it will do for women, I, on behalf of the constituency for which I speak, nonetheless recognize section 15, this piece of legislation, as a victory for us in the efforts which started in 1879 — a continuation of that kind of struggle. I also recognize that it is not the end, and I want to serve notice to the Attorney-General that this is not the last that he will be hearing from this side on this issue, because we are not going to stop until all of the legislation and all of the regulations have been brought into line and we find ourselves firmly on track in terms of equal pay for work of equal value, pension legislation and good solid affirmative action on behalf not just of women but of all disadvantaged groups in our society.

I support this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has somewhat more enthusiasm than I have. I am particularly angry that the government would use a piece of legislation such as this to subvert the rights of people. For the most part, this legislation is straightforward and fine, amending our statutes so that they conform with the new Charter of Rights in section 15. But when they did that, then they sneaked in something that was going to be in another bill. I understand that.... And I wish the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) were here; I can't understand why he is not here when it is his ministry which is doing in this way what they should have done straightforwardly, if they had intended to subvert the rights of some.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation deletes section 6(11) from the Workers Compensation Act. Let me read to you what 6(11) says — and that's of the act, not of this bill. Section 6(11): "Where a deceased worker was, at the date of his death, under the age of 70 years and suffering from an industrial disease of a type that impairs the capacity of function of the lungs, and where the death was caused by some ailment or impairment of the lungs or heart of a non-traumatic origin, it shall be conclusively presumed that the death resulted from the industrial disease."

We have had this fight over silicosis and all the other industrially brought about lung diseases over the years in this province, and now what we've done is turn back the darned clock, because at least 50 percent of silicosis victims do not die of silicosis per se, nor do victims of asbestosis die of asbestosis per se. Because of the strain on their heart, they die of heart failure — at least 50 percent of them.

This government, under the guise of a bill of rights, is rescinding the section that had protected those people. Now it is up to the Workers' Compensation Board, whose record is so dismal, so abysmal, that there's a horror story a day on that board. Now we're leaving it to the Workers' Compensation Board to decide whether or not that person died of a compensable illness. They'll say: "Well, he died of heart failure. What's that got to do with silicosis?" I'll read into the record what some doctors — some outstanding authorities — say about it in due course. But I am saying that to use Bill 33 to carry a reduction in human rights into this House is an absolutely abysmal piece of work on behalf of the government.

Mr. Speaker, who is the victim? I'll tell you who the victim is. The person, having suffered over the years with a debilitating lung disease, finally at age 69 dies of heart failure. The Compensation Board turns around and they say, "Well, you're no longer one of ours. Your wife can go straight plumb to you-know-where, because she is no longer the widow of a person who has been industrially disabled. She is now the widow of a person who died naturally and gets not a damn thing."

Mr. Speaker, to use this bill to perpetrate that act is beyond comprehension.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's wrong, as usual.

MR. COCKE: "He's wrong, as usual." There's the lawyer, the consumer affairs person, going out. "He's wrong as usual." Not on your life am I wrong. Every expert in the field says I'm right.

Mr. Speaker, this particular section offends the whole bill, as far as I'm concerned. I had heard rumours, when the new Minister of Labour took over, that that section would be deleted. I checked the order paper as recently as half an hour ago. I see no amendment. I see nothing that would delete the section of the bill that offends me and every just-thinking person in this province. Section 120 of this particular bill is offensive. The only protection that those widows and families had.... We're not only talking about a person of 64 years; there are a lot of relatively young people who come out of those mines and those industries where one ruins one's lungs. Sometimes they have a relatively young family. So the person dies at age 45, 38, or whatever, of heart failure; but that person is a victim of silicosis, asbestosis and all the other lung illnesses that have their genesis in industry. They're left penniless.

The government is telling those victims to go on welfare. I'll tell you right now, that's what the Workers' Compensation Board is doing in this province. All MLAs sitting in this chamber at the moment have enough horror stories on their desks to make what I'm saying in this Legislative Assembly absolutely right in their minds. Whether or not they get up and say it is another thing. I've seen more people in the last few years rendered penniless by the handling of their just claims by the Workers' Compensation Board. Everyone is viewed as a malingerer in the eyes of the ministry, because they perpetuate the authority at the Workers' Compensation Board.

Flesher and those doctors should have been fired a long time ago, but they're there, and so they along with this section are not only rendering a disservice, they're handing

[ Page 7140 ]

them over — I'm talking about the government now — to the Workers' Compensation Board, who will always take the tack of saving a buck on behalf of the Workers' Compensation Board. Oh, dear no! Not always. I can remember a very few short years ago when they refunded to Cominco $800,000 of a fine that had been paid. Cominco still had not met the standards, but this board refunded $800,000 and suspended that fine of $24,000 a month. It is a scandal.

The whole thing around Workers' Compensation Board is a scandal, and the Attorney-General has the unmitigated audacity to walk into this House and tell us he's got a great bill before us, and in that bill they've sneaked in what the Minister of Labour didn't dare do. They were trying by installing this new minister to maybe improve the image of the Workers' Compensation Board. So he's got nothing on his hands. His hands are clean, Pontius Pilate–like. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not an amendment that should appear in this bill.

Now the Attorney-General may say: "Well, you know, there's an age thing here, and so we'd better address that age thing." I have talked to other lawyers, and those other lawyers tell me that this section possibly, if viewed on its own and without all the implications, could be a section that deals with section 15. But they go on to tell me it offends section 7 of the Charter. If you'll bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to find the wording of section 7 of the Charter, which this particular bill offends.

Yes, the justification for repealing this Section 1s not that it mentions age — under the age of 70 — but that it contravenes section 7 of the Charter, which reads in part as follows: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

[11:15]

We see no fundamental justice, Mr. Speaker, in a section of a bill which is supposed to be dedicated to fundamental justice. It denies that justice to those widows of people who died of a related illness as the result of an industrial disease. Experts will tell that that's true.

Let me read a couple of excerpts from letters. This is to Mr. Segarty, the Minister of Labour, and it's from Clyde Hertzman, MD MSC FRCP, the university, faculty of medicine. I gather that he has some idea about what he's writing. He says in this letter:

"It has been brought to my attention that your government intends to eliminate the above-mentioned section of the Workers Compensation Act. I would like to pass on to you my concerns about that decision. I am a physician-epidemiologist, who has spent the last six years studying the principles of cause and effect and conducting research in the occupational and environmental health context. From my perspective, causation is a very difficult relationship to demonstrate conclusively when a long-term, low-dose exposure is suspected of leading to a chronic disease.

"While difficult to demonstrate in groups of people, the exercise often becomes futile when applied to individuals. In the case of heart disease following silicosis, which I presume is the most common clinical context for invoking section 6(11), the cause, silicosis, may have a wide spectrum of severity, and the effect, heart disease, may be influenced by many constitutional, environmental and life-style factors.

"In broad terms, we know that lung damage from silicosis will adversely affect both lung and cardiac function. But there is no scientific way to determine the degree of responsibility which a specific case of silicosis might have had in an individual case of heart disease.

"In the face of such uncertainty, a procedure like section 6(11) is both sensible and humane. It preempts unscientific debates about cause and effect and gives a clear benefit of the doubt to the worker's family. Removal of this section would likely lead to an expensive, traumatic, arbitrary and unfair process of adjudication of individual claims.

"As an epidemiologist, I feel a responsibility to make sure that our knowledge and expertise is not oversold. To delete section 6(11) would effectively do just that. Please leave it intact."

Mr. Speaker, also from the University of British Columbia, Moira Yeung, MB FRCP, professor of medicine, head of respiratory division, VGH. She's at both the university and VGH. I'm not reading her whole letter. This is in context out of her letter.

"I have reviewed the causes of death of 38 patients who received compensation for pneumoconiosis in British Columbia."

Incidentally, that is the wide definition of silicosis — you know, all the -osis.

"Of 38 patients, 16, or almost 50 percent, died of heart failure secondary to pneumoconiosis; six, or 16 percent, died of lung cancer; another six, or 16 percent, died of other types of cancer. Five died of pneumonia. This finding, that 50 percent of the patients died of heart failure, confirmed what is reported in the literature."

Mr. Speaker, given the track record of WCB — and it is abysmal — those people are going to be denied access to this section. It will no longer be there. I think it offends everything that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks about. Mr. Speaker, heart failure, secondary to silicosis or asbestosis, is a natural sequence of the disease process. "In my opinion, section 6(11) should not be removed from the compensation act."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am going to surprise the member by telling him I am quite happy to take a second look at that — review it, that section.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no, I know. But I thought he'd like to know that, that I will review it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That normally would be covered, Mr. Attorney, in your closing comments.

HON. MR. SMITH: Normally his speech would be covered in committee too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's true as well. You'll appreciate that it is difficult in an omnibus bill to rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I decided to use the latitude of second reading on this particular bill because of the depth of my feeling around this particular issue. The fact that he has

[ Page 7141 ]

decided to review it, and I hope rescind it.... I will wait for further comment until we look at this in committee. I will be watching the order paper with a tremendous amount of bated breath, yes, and all sorts of apprehension as well, I'm afraid.

I hope that the minister will repeal or at least just take this section out of the bill and delete it, and we will be all happy. I'll go and then say what my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) says: yes, it's a step forward. I cannot say it is a step forward with this piece of work in it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, while we have the Attorney-General's attention and his inclination to consider changes, I would like him to seriously consider the inequity that is still in place with respect to voting that you have not addressed in the Charter.

It is unacceptable that at the national level in federal elections 18-year-olds are full Canadians, but within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia, an 18-year old is a second-class citizen when it comes to voting for the provincial government.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) makes spurious comments about 17, 16, 15. Nationally a person is a Canadian at the full age of majority of 18 years of age. They have the right to exercise their franchise as full citizens. Yet what is the justification for, within the boundaries of British Columbia, not being able to vote at 18? Here is an opportunity to bring the voting age into line with the federal government. I ask the minister to take into account that inequity, which he could address very simply in these Charter amendments.

Access to education, which has not been dealt with as well, for disabled people or for anybody else, for that matter.... I draw to the minister's attention something that exists in the country of Australia, within the state of Victoria, just to give us an idea how far behind we are in guaranteeing rights for people. In the state of Victoria they have what is called a youth guarantee. When you are between the ages of 18 and 21, you are guaranteed education or training or employment. How do you like them apples? You're entitled by right to have education, training or employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Join the twentieth century.

MR. HANSON: That's how far we are behind, Mr. Speaker. Yet does this Charter address at all rights to access to education or access to employment? Not at all, and these are fundamental things. These are just sort of amendments to the Hairdressers Act or something like that. There are serious gut issues that affect the young people of this province.

So when we have a provincial government that won't allow young people to vote when they should be allowed to, and to have access to proper education, as they are being denied in this province.... We do have the poorest participation rate, next to Newfoundland, of any province in the country in access to post-secondary education. I mean, we're a wealthy province. We have tremendous resources. Our economy is in bad shape at the moment, but we do have the equity of bountiful natural resources that could be utilized to guarantee people training, education and employment.

So I would like to ask the minister, when he takes a second look at the matter presented to him by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) with respect to WCB coverage, to also consider the voting age and to consider bringing in an amendment that individuals will have the right to vote in provincial elections at the same age they can vote in the national elections in Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: There have been a number of specific suggestions made on matters that were either in the bill or not in the bill. Where it deals with matters that are in the bill, I think I will probably comment on them in committee. But I heard the good speech by the member for Burnaby, who noted that we have not dealt with some issues — such as pensions, an issue which does present, I think, grave difficulties under the Charter. It's fair to say that the most difficult issues under the Charter are issues like mandatory retirement and pension entitlement, and whether you ignore statistical facts and mortality tables because of the language of the Charter, or whether you treat it as a restriction in Section 1, that would be justified in a free and democratic society. How the courts are going to deal with this of course remains to be seen.

I notice also that she seemed to believe that I or this government had passed section 15(2) of the Charter. The Charter legislation is legislation that was prepared by Canada and assented to by the United Kingdom, and by the provinces through the accord; but we could not change unilaterally, nor could the Canadian government, section 15 of the Charter, nor can I give any assurance to that member as to how the courts will deal with it. I took her plea particularly to try to ensure that there were not decisions under section 15 or other sections of the Charter, particularly those that deal with freedom of association and some of the other rights…that she was looking for some assurance that those sections would not be employed by the courts to strike down some of the clauses involving closed shop and other familiar long-standing provisions in collective agreements. There's absolutely no way that any Attorney-General of a province, or an Attorney-General of Canada, can give that member that assurance. I rather took it, though, that I have — at least from her — an invitation to use the override. If she were here.... Maybe when we get into committee, I will get her response that would urge the use of the override in some particular areas if she doesn't like the judicial decisions that are going to flow.

[11:30]

I can tell her as well that we not only have examined legislative discrimination and noncompliance with Charter principles over the past two years, but also regulations. A number of regulations have already been altered and more will be altered. Our position is that as legislation is modified to accommodate the Charter, so must the regulations.

I also note that she made some comments about disabled persons. The amendment in here which deals with disabled persons is to permit the very affirmative action that she expressed an interest in under section 15(2). It may be that it is desirable affirmative action to permit some classes of handicapped persons to be employed in sheltered workshops below the minimum wage, if the alternative to that is always going to be that they won't be employed. I know that many of them prefer that employment, the minimum wage really being another matter. But that change is designed to help handicapped persons, not to try to keep them below the

[ Page 7142 ]

minimum wage, because you cannot equate the allowances that they receive for work that they do — and useful work that they do — with the minimum wage.

With regard to the comments of the member for Victoria on voting rights for people in British Columbia who are 18 and would be entitled to vote in Canadian elections but are not in this province, I would simply point out that British Columbia was one of the first jurisdictions in Canada to lower its age of majority from 21 to 19. I might also point out that much of that was due to the initiative of my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) when he was in another capacity. I would also point out that we are frequently asked by citizens' groups in this province — representatives of the medical community and the insurance community — to raise the legal age for doing certain things in this province, including the age for driving and particularly the age for drinking. The thrust, it seems to me, is to increase the age. But in British Columbia we have kept the age for all things at 19. If Canada wishes to have a different age, so be it. Why do we have to be all the same in this country? Does the Charter of Rights mean that…?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it doesn't mean that at all. You have a totally simplistic, mechanistic view of the Charter and the constitution, hon. member, with due respect. You think that it means everybody is to be the same, that equality means sameness. In a pig's ear it does.

I also notice that we're having quoted to us some of these wonderful guarantees that are thought to reside in legislation from Down Under. A very hasty trip down there by the Leader of the Opposition has imbued him with all wisdom and knowledge of the legislation from Australia and New Zealand — the marvellous stories that we've received of social compacts and accord — and now we have a suggestion that a guaranteed piece of youth legislation from Victoria state should be adopted here. Well, I would have the member know that, yes, Victoria does have some progressive legislation. It also has legislation which restricts the right of people to have a driver's licence until they're 17, which requires them to have them on probation, and which means that their probationary driver's licence doesn't even exist if they have one drop of liquor in their system. Those are measures that I'm looking at now for possible introduction into this province. They are moving in a positive way to try to make youth more responsible, not to give them more guaranteed handouts.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 33, Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: I want to ask the minister a question, really. Is there a possibility that they are overdoing this whole idea about protecting the rights of societies — initials, names, and so on and so forth — making, sort of, those societies sacrosanct? I'd just like to know the motivation behind the whole thing. I realize that an MD or a member of the College of Dental Surgeons, and so on and so forth, is very proud of their association. How far is this going to go, however? What kinds of societies are we dealing with here?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member's point is well taken. He mentions the overprotecting of societies by giving them an occupational title and providing a designation behind the name of a member of that society. We looked at that. It was, I must admit, of some concern to us. However, if I was to look at the opposite to the overprotection of society, could I suggest that it does give protection to the consumer. In many cases people hold themselves out to be a certified person, a qualified person, and yet have no training, no affiliation with an association or a society that has put its members through certain requirements to achieve a standard of qualification for the job.

So the intent of this section of the Society Act is to allow a society to have an occupational title. The rationale is to identify the standard of that society or a member of that society, so that when the consumer is looking for a.... Let me try to give you some examples: possibly a therapist; it could be an acupuncturist; many others. I guess there could be a proliferation of them. For example, if a travel agent had achieved a standard of education and taken certain examinations and completed studies, there would be some assurance to the consumer that this person was well versed in their particular skill.

That is why I think this particular section of the Society Act dealing with occupational titles will provide the consumer a greater benefit, as opposed to your first concern, which was overprotecting the individual society.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Possibly the bill should be considered by subsection.

MR. COCKE: I haven't got that much to do in the bill. I'm just dealing with this whole section and I want clarification.

May I ask the minister what the safeguards will be within this structure to see to it that fly-by-night societies do not transgress the motivation or the standards of this thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in section 1, the particular section we're dealing with, on registration, you'll note that a society may apply to the registrar, and in doing that must have bylaws dealing with qualifications of admission to membership in that particular society. There are certain standards, examinations and studies that the membership must complete to get the designation, and then of course there must be bylaws to deal with the conduct of members and the ethics and standards of their practice. So those are levels of protection within the society itself, of which they must advise the registrar.

But I think the key comments in the legislation deal with.... I'm quoting, Mr. Chairman: "Where the registrar is satisfied that subsection (1) has been complied with," which is all the bylaws of the society, "and he considers that it is in the public interest," then he may register the society

[ Page 7143 ]

under this particular part of the Society Act. I think that is the key. If they meet the criteria, then they can be registered; if they don't, they will not be given the protection of part 9(l) of the Society Act, which gives them protection of the title and the designation behind members' names.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under section 2 we're talking about a decision of the registrar, and we're saying that it is not subject to appeal. Does that mean that there is no recourse whatsoever? That there is no recourse within the courts? Can it be appealed to cabinet committee? How far are we going with this business of no recourse to appeal?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, under section 2 the decision of the registrar is not subject to appeal. Again, I refer the member back to the criteria that are set out for this society and the application and the consideration as to whether or not the registration is in the public interest. If we proceed beyond that, then we've taken away from the registrar his role. But I would suggest, Mr. Member, that if it was denied, the registrar would be giving an indication as to why, and of course there is the opportunity of reapplication if they so desire.

We felt that this should be dealt with under the Societies Act by the registrar, and any denial of occupational title protection would be a final say of the registrar. But after complete and full discussion with the society.... As I said before, if the society was denied the first time, it could change the bylaws and could further expand and reapply if desired.

MR. COCKE: I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I feel that our present registrar is eminently fair. I have seen a lot of the work that he has done, and it would strike me that we could expect the public good to be the prime motivating factor.

The problem is, though, that we're dealing here with a value judgment. It is a value judgment, and you could get another registrar who might come along with a hard line against this accounting group or that blah-blah, or whatever. The member for Willingdon shakes his head. Don't shake it too hard; it might fall off.

[11:45]

The fact of the matter is, it is a value judgment, and I do concern myself about the fact that there is no recourse whatsoever to appeal it. Sometimes a second opinion is necessary — either way, whether you are denying a group access to this particular legislation or whether you're accepting their application.

So it's just a bit of a concern. I rather wish that there would be some level of appeal, and I don't think it necessarily should go to the courts. It might go to a cabinet committee, you know. Now at least there you may have, as we presently do have, I think, a number of people who are quite preoccupied with politics and other things. But at the same time it is a trust that people put in them to take a look at what has been done by one of the senior officials. We have that particular appeal process in the motor transport, and it strikes me that it should be here. Or some access. I'm not suggesting an expensive court procedure; I'm suggesting that there should be some access to appeal, whichever way this particular value judgment is made.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response, Mr. Chairman, again referring to 86(2): where all the bylaws of the society indicate that they qualify, then the question is in the public interest. That's the value judgment. But I think the member would agree that if the registrar, in making that value judgment, used a specious argument or is biased in his approach, he of course subjects himself to some criticism and as a result is not carrying out his job in the proper manner. However, Mr. Chairman, we felt that in most cases it's a matter of meeting the criteria of the Society Act by registering; if you wish to go this one step further, you may apply for it, and in very few instances would there be a denial — unless of course the name conflicted with another name, or if it was just some, as you put it earlier, fly-by-night organization that made application, and it would not be in the public interest to grant it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 48, Society Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.