[ Page 2073 ]
Routine Proceedings
Private Members' Statements
Railway abandonment. Mr. Hewitt –– 2073
Hon. Mr. Davis
Mr. D'Arcy
Highway construction in Rossland-Trail. Mr. D'Arcy –– 2075
Hon. Mr. Davis
Bilingualism. Mr. R. Fraser –– 2076
Ms. Edwards
Ms. Campbell
Mr. Lovick
Open Government. Mr. Jones –– 2077
Hon. Mr. Veitch
Presenting Reports –– 2079
Tabling Documents –– 2080
Victoria Foundation Act (Bill PR406). Committee stage. (Mr. Huberts) –– 2080
Third reading
University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill PR406).
Committee stage. (Mr. Huberts) –– 2080
Third reading
Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Second reading
Mr. De Jong –– 2080
Mr. Williams –– 2080
Mr. De Jong –– 2081
Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR403). Committee stage. (Mr. De Jong) –– 2081
Mr. Williams
Mr. Rose
Ms. Edwards
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Lovick
Third reading
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.
(Hon. Mr. Strachan)
On vote 29: minister's office –– 2082
Ms. Smallwood
Adoption Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 26). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 2084
Mr. Cashore
Hon. Mr. Brummet
Mr. Rose
Mr. D'Arcy
Mr. Guno
Third reading
Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 29). Committee stage.
(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2089
Mr. Clark
Third reading
Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 41). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 2089 Third reading
Royal assent to bills –– 2090
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Statements
RAILWAY ABANDONMENT
MR. HEWITT: I'm speaking today on railway abandonment and its impact on interior communities. I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that I recognize, as we all do, the part that railways played in the developing of Canada, truly making it a land from sea to sea. But it wasn't just the railways that did that; it was also the part that was played by governments of Canada, both provincial and federal. Therefore the people of Canada contributed a great deal to the building of those rail lines, particularly the free Crown grants that were given — to the CPR particularly — for railway rights-of-way. Those rights-of-way allowed them to build their lines, which allowed industry to open up throughout the provinces of Canada, which allowed for farming, mining, logging. Following that, of course, other industries developed. Communities flourished, and freight and passenger service provided services to those communities and allowed this country and this province to grow and prosper.
The rail line, Mr. Speaker, was the link to the marketplace. The first fifty years of this century, the transportation corridor of the rail line was what made British Columbia and Canada develop as a modem nation. But times change, and we all recognize that. Highway development took place; trucking replaced the rail line in many cases; airlines provided for quick and easy passage for people going to major communities throughout the country. Some lines became uneconomical and were abandoned, and rightly so. But the alarm bells have sounded.
Just to give you some idea of what's in store for us, an article in the Vancouver Province in May 1986 stated that CP Rail wants to abandon nearly 47 percent of its network, cutting out 11,265 kilometres, or 7,000 miles, of the 24,139 kilometre right-of-way. Railway president R.S. Allison said there is an immediate need to surrender 3,200 to 4,800 kilometres of track. "The rest we can tackle in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary way." The CN vice-president stated that CN would like to scrap 16,000 kilometres — or approximately 10,000 miles — of branch line over a ten-year period. That's Canada-wide, Mr. Speaker.
No one can argue with the abandonment of uneconomical lines, but there are two questions that beg to be asked. First, are the branch lines uneconomical, or do the railway companies make them that way? Secondly, what happens to the railway right-of-way when the line is abandoned? Should we allow it to be sold by the real estate branch of the railway company — in many cases, the land that they acquired was given to them free and for use as a railway right-of-way — or should that property revert to the Crown? I'd like to deal with the southern interior of British Columbia, specifically with the CPR. This situation could apply across Canada. Remember that CP stated they wanted to abandon 47 percent of their rail network — some 7,000 miles of line.
Let me deal with the first question: are the branch lines uneconomical or do the railway companies make them that way? In the past ten years, two railway subdivisions in the southern part of British Columbia have been abandoned, specifically in my constituency: the Okanagan Falls-Osoyoos subdivision, a rail line from Penticton to Osoyoos; and the Carmi subdivision, a rail line from Penticton to Midway. In the first instance — OK Falls to Osoyoos — the railway line abandonment impacted on the export of apples to the United States and eastern Canada. It impacted on the lumber industry in my area. But in the end, after hearings of the CTC, the line was proved to be uneconomical. Now trucks move products to the United States and eastern Canada.
The second story, the Carmi railway subdivision — that's the line between Penticton and Midway — is an interesting one. Let me read a letter from the mayor of the village of Midway on this matter:
"Our concerns go back a few years when, in early March of 1975, the council of the village of Midway forwarded letters to the Canadian Transport Commission and to our MP, Mr. George Whittaker. It was the consensus of council that CP Rail had allowed not only its service on the Carmi subdivision but the rail line itself to deteriorate to such an extent that CP Rail would very likely be applying for abandonment.
"On March 17, 1975, the Canadian Transport Commission advised that they did not have an application from CP Rail for the abandonment of the Carmi. However, they would request a submission from CP Rail on the allegation. This submission from CP Rail naturally showed the company was losing money" — on that specific line. "The council was proved to be correct. On September 21, 1976, one and a half years after our original letter, CP Rail applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for abandonment of this line."
In the end, the line was closed due to the fact that it was uneconomical. But was it by design? The letter stated, a year and a half before the application, that service had been reduced and the line allowed to deteriorate. Today, the next step is being put into motion: the application for an abandonment of the Castlegar-to-Midway subdivision, known as the Boundary subdivision. To quote the letter from the mayor of Midway, Mr. Jim McMynn:
"It would appear once again that perhaps the same type of situation is taking place, only in a different area. In 1975 we were stating that the line west of Midway — Carmi subdivision — would be abandoned. Now we are looking at the possibility of the line from Midway east being abandoned" — that is, the Boundary subdivision.
"We also note that a large number of new ties have been dumped along this line, we presume to be used to replace the old ties. This of course is an ongoing procedure, but seems to be a bit out of line this year. The CPR used the same method on the Carmi subdivision, and of course accrued large expenses against the line, but then salvaged all these ties as soon as they received" the right to abandon the line.
"CP Rail should not be allowed to let the same situation happen yet another time. It would appear that the policy of CP Rail is to increase freight rates, to allow its services to deteriorate and diminish in
[ Page 2074 ]
quality, and not be able to supply the quantity of freight cars required by local industry."
MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I got carried away with my comment. I'd like to finish after I have had a response.
HON. MR. DAVIS: The member for Boundary-Similkameen asks two searching questions.
One is: are these numerous lines across the country, and particularly in southern B.C., still economic? I think the answer, generally speaking, is no.
His second question is: if they are to be abandoned, how should they be abandoned? I think the simplistic answer, the one which would suit the majority of British Columbians, is that the right-of-way should revert to the Crown provincial. It was gifted by the province to these railways initially on the understanding — indeed, on the commitment — that they would provide transportation services. Now that they are determined to discontinue these services, the right-of-way should revert to the Crown.
More important, from an economic and financial point of view, is what happens to the lands they have in built-up communities. Some of those lands which are in part right-of way, part marshalling yards, part depots and terminal areas should also revert to the Crown. The Crown could sell off those lands over time, and with the revenue either provide other services in the province or perhaps rehabilitate, over time, parts of the rights-of-way for purposes other than rail usage.
[10:15]
Our railways in Canada — this doesn't apply altogether to the CPR, but it certainly does to the CNR and to B.C. Rail — incurred very large debts. These debts were eventually shouldered by the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia. Their capital costs, in other words, were written off, and they are now operating without having to pay the interest on very large debts. They simply break even, or hopefully make money, purely on salaries, wages and fuel being offset by the rates they charge.
The railways claim that they are having to compete unfairly against roads maintained by the public purse, and there have been propositions made by the railways that the right-of way — if it is to revert to the Crown — be maintained by the Crown. I think that because they were given the rights-of way, they should maintain them.
But generally speaking, railways aren't competitive within a 500-mile radius of a source of freight and really anywhere in the country in terms of passenger transport. So I don't doubt that these branch lines are not economical, but I do question how they should be wound up. I contend that these rights-of-way and other properties should revert to the provincial Crown.
MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very quick, by necessity. We on this side of the House are very pleased to hear the first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) opposing his own government policy on railway abandonment. The federal government in Ottawa has bills before their chamber that will make it much easier for the various railway companies to simply walk away from railway rights-of-way. His government — or at least the Social Credit government which the transport minister from Seymour represents — is in favour of those particular proposals and has gone on record.... I am glad to see that at least one member of the Social Credit Party is opposed to the Social Credit government policy in that regard.
I want to quickly say that the remnants of the Kettle Valley Railway, the line that the member for Boundary-Similkameen talks about in particular — at least half of it — is in my riding, although the shippers and receivers are fundamentally in the Boundary country. The fact is that the CPR made a deliberate decision in 1959 to not keep the Coquihalla open.
In 1960 they made a deliberate decision to no longer make shipments from the West Kootenay and Boundary — whether it was forest products or mining products — directly to or from Vancouver, but rather to send them all east through Cranbrook and Golden, over the Rogers Pass and out to the coast that way. That allowed them to say that there is no traffic on the Kettle Valley, because after all, there wasn't. It was all going around the horn instead of taking a direct route. It also resulted in increased freight rates for every single shipper and every single industry, including the fruit industry, in the southern interior.
This is just the end of it, from their point of view. The CPR's action over the last 30 years has been to deliberately set the stage for abandonment of all of their rail lines in the southern interior of British Columbia, and governments of this province — your government and, I have to say, even the brief period of New Democratic government — have stood by and let this happen, along with the various federal administrations, which even you, Mr. Speaker, were part of at one time. It is a tragedy, but we're only in the last act of that tragedy right now.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Rossland-Trail. But the thrust of my statement is simply this: the government of British Columbia must adopt a policy to monitor and comment on any application before the CTC, to ensure that the abandonment of any line in British Columbia, whether it is in the southern interior or anywhere else, is justified, not contrived. As the member for Rossland-Trail says, it is a strategy that has been in place for a number of years. I am saying that British Columbia and other provincial governments across Canada should make sure they have a statement to be made before the CTC; otherwise we are reneging on our duty.
Mr. Speaker, we get only one more chance to preserve these corridors. The government cannot allow these railways that are abandoned to be left to the discretion of the CPR or the CNR. Action is required now. There should be legislation or a contractual agreement between the province and federal government, if necessary; or acquisition of the abandoned railway, if justified, should take place. We should acquire it from the railways by legislation if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I just say this: we're talking about 47 percent of the national lines in Canada — the CP network and some 10,000 kilometres of CN. We're not just talking about the southern interior., British Columbia could take a leadership role in Canada to protect this provincial and national asset. I ask the government to make this issue a top priority in the coming years — and I say years. Firstly, the government policy should be to investigate and intervene, where justified, in any application for abandonment of any rail line in British Columbia or in any other province in
[ Page 2075 ]
Canada. Secondly, where the railway abandonment is allowed, the right-of-way should revert to the Crown, because the people of the province and of the country gave the railway these rights-of-ways to move people and goods across Canada.
With that, I know I'm in agreement with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) ; he agrees on that concept. I think we disagree somewhat on what's economical and what isn't, because I know in my area the Carmi subdivision was allowed to deteriorate, service was restricted, and in the end the line was lost. The same thing is happening in the Boundary subdivision right now. We know it; the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and I know it.
This is a major issue, not just in the sense of that one small subdivision, but for Canada, for the farmer on the prairie and for the people in other provinces. I think British Columbia could have a major leadership role in this country in making sure that the rail lines are aware that provincial governments are watching them.
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ROSSLAND-TRAIL
MR. D'ARCY: I certainly enjoyed the warm-up. We're going to go from railways to highways.
One of the things I want to speak about is the longstanding thorn in our sides in my constituency, and that is the project that the Highways ministry has dubbed the West Trail approach.
Between 1965 and 1975, 19 out of the 20 miles of the Trail-Castlegar highway were completely rebuilt, from a 1930s and 1940s standard highway up to a 60-mile-an-hour modem highway. But the worst segment of that highway, the busiest segment and the most dangerous from the point of view of truck and rail traffic — because of its proximity to industry — was left untouched. For the last 12 years, we have received a succession of promises, commitments and studies from various Ministers of Highways and Premiers of this province that something was going to happen about this.
Just before I go on, I have to say that there has been other major construction in the constituency in that same period: the Kinnaird-Meadows highway, a brand new highway, was completely built; and there's been major construction from Trail to Montrose. So it's not as though the constituency has been neglected by the Highways ministry, but there is this particularly dangerous mile of highway — and, I might say, a very expensive piece of highway — which has still hardly been touched. In spite of the fact that just last summer and fall.... We all know that politicians, especially if they are running for office provincially, are wont to make major promises. Some major promises were made, commitments by the Social Credit candidates who traveled through the constituency, which I was very glad to hear. Those promises were made, and it was even said that it wouldn't matter how the election went — there was a commitment to proceed with this.
Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing has happened, and practically a year has passed. I want to state quite clearly that we're not just talking about a highway. This goes back to what we were just talking about: actually there are five railway crossings, highly dangerous ones, that we want to avoid in the constituency. We don't want to remove the tracks; we simply want to have a road that goes around the tracks.
We also want to facilitate the modernization of industry within the area. There's no question about that. If the road is on another location, it will facilitate the use of the area for industry, which is what it was originally used for in any event, Mr. Speaker.
There is also a major feeder route, the Trail to Warfield route, which would also be bypassed by the West Trail approach and replaced. I think we need to point out to the House that this is also an extremely dangerous piece of highway, to the extent that it not only has hairpins and very steep grades, but a runaway. We all know that runaway vehicles do occur, unfortunately, from time to time in British Columbia, and when that occurs, some major steam and acid lines supplying the fertilizer plants in Warfield are endangered. Naturally, the community at large would be endangered by a collision on this particular stretch of highway.
We're rather protective of our fertilizer and pollution control plants right now because of fertilizer plant shutdowns in Kimberley, Calgary and Spokane by the company that Cominco Ltd. operates in Trail.
The Highways minister is not in the House today, but I want to impress upon him — I hope he reads the Blues — that I think the constituency I represent, the people of the city of Trail in particular, have been very patient. They have trusted politicians, and they have believed it when they have been told that something is going to be done about this particularly dangerous and low-quality stretch of highway, albeit one that is somewhat expensive to repair. Hopefully, they will be listening.
The second thing I want to talk about is a lesser point. In the northern part of the riding, there is a road called the Pass Creek Road, on which we have received constant commitments from various ministers of Highways and regional spokesmen for the Highways ministry. It was going to be modernized and improved. This has gone back over a great many years, and yet nothing has happened. We are getting impatient with the Ministry of Highways — both at the regional and provincial level — and demanding now that some action be taken.
I see the green light is on, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I hope the Minister of Highways and the Treasury Board are listening and will pay some attention to these particular projects, which are way overdue and certainly a threat to the safety of the people who use these roads.
HON. MR. DAVIS: First, I'll certainly draw the submission of the hon. member for Rossland-Trail to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). I agree with him, and I know the minister would also agree that considerable work is needed on the western approach to Trail from Rossland, and also that the changes necessary are quite expensive, because some of them involve the movement of utilities and involve built-up areas.
I have some notes here which indicate the progress of work to date and the cost of those works which remain to be done. I see from the notes that the railway underpass excavation is complete, the pipe bridge underpass is complete, the CP Rail underpass is complete, and the railway has been relocated. There is some $7.5 million worth of further work required. Work on one item is to begin this summer. It is to relocate the Trail Creek culvert, and that is to be done on a cost-sharing basis with the city of Trail. That's a $2.5 million item.
[ Page 2076 ]
Relocation of utility lines will be done by Cominco at the cost of $1.3 million to the provincial ministry; retaining walls, miscellaneous locations, $300,000; relocate utilities north of the underpass, $1.2 million; grading, curb and gutter paving, a further $2.2 million.
So there's a lot left to be done; it's expensive. A start will be made this summer. I don't have any indication as to when all these works will be completed, but I assume that the ministry, now having made a substantial investment in this west highway approach to Trail, will continue to finish those works so that the public can really take advantage of them.
[10:30]
The hon. member referred to the problem of runaway trucks on the Rossland-Trail highway, 3B, to Warfield. A brake-check stop will be installed at the top of the hill just outside Rossland to give vehicle drivers a further opportunity to check the condition of their equipment, and a preliminary design is being completed of a new type of runaway lane to be constructed alongside the downhill shoulder. This will have the advantage of stopping trucks without their having to cross opposing traffic to get to the present uphill runaway lanes.
MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm encouraged, and so will my constituents be encouraged, by the sincerity and directness of the statements of the minister who is speaking on behalf of the Highways minister.
One of the difficulties that we all have, though, Mr. Speaker, is that we have been receiving these kinds of assurances and statements of good intentions from government spokesman for a number of years. All of the work, in fact, that the minister referred to was completed in 1979-80. That was the first third, and that's now seven years ago. We haven't seen any activity since that time.
The minister says there was property to be acquired; that was all acquired back in 1979-80. Indeed, a great many people were moved out of their homes. A residential neighbourhood and some businesses were completely levelled, and the flavour of part of the community was changed. Yet no visible construction has taken place.
The minister has described the second third of the project, and — fair enough — he said he couldn't speak for sure about the third third. But I'm very encouraged that this work is to go ahead, or start at least, in conjunction with the city of Trail. The city, I might say, is very earnest and ready to proceed. We're sensitive in Trail about the Trail Creek culvert. The minister may remember the disaster of 1969 — I have to get my years straight, but I think it was 1969. Certainly, ever since that time, some major work has needed to be done to expand the capacity of that particular culvert to avoid a similar occurrence, in future decades.
So I'm encouraged by what the minister has said. We're all a little bit like Harry Truman, though, in this — we're going to believe it when we see it. But I want to thank the minister nonetheless for his directness in responding.
BILINGUALISM
MR. R. FRASER: Bonjour mes amis. Mr. Speaker, that is about the pitiful level of French spoken by people in British Columbia, including myself, so I make no criticism of other members in that respect. But the reason I want to talk about bilingualism is that we are a bilingual country officially, and in spite of the fact that there are people around who think the war was won on the plains of Abraham and that there should therefore be only one language, we are official. We did welcome the French people and the French language, and we have maintained it. Now we have an Official Languages Act which is, slowly but surely, taking place across the country.
While we would talk with those who say we should be speaking Japanese and Chinese — indeed, one of the members opposite introduced a language bill yesterday — the fact is I would encourage people here to speak the language of our commercial customers, if we wish to do it that way. But the fact remains that we in the west, if we fail to pick up on the thrust of language training, will be the ultimate longtime losers, and I think the evidence is already coming that way.
I've had these feelings for some time, Mr. Speaker, but what really brought it home to me was a meeting I was at recently in Montreal, a conference celebrating the centennial of engineering organizations in Canada. Although engineering's been here much longer than that, it was the celebration of 100 years of engineering organizations. Many of the documents were exclusively in French. Those of us who speak only one language found ourselves at a significant disadvantage when looking at other people at the conference who were fluent in both languages and who evidently from the very beginning of their education had spoken in two.
For the reasons that we see shown in the records, we note, for example, that there are numbers of federal government jobs that demand bilingualism, and we understand that many of those jobs are filled by people who do not speak both official languages well enough to really communicate. But the fact is that if we look at some of the trends, even in the province of Quebec, we see.... For example, the number of Anglophones in the administration of the province of Quebec is going down. If we look at the federal civil service, we note that in order to get a senior federal service job, you have to speak French. We note that the Speaker of the House, who is from Vancouver South, and who I can assure you is a long-time friend of mine — and of yours as well, Mr. Speaker — was raised in Vancouver, speaking very little French except that which was required in high school, and probably only one year at university. He now, as we see, is, or is becoming, fluently bilingual, which should be a very strong indicator to all of us that there really is not time left. If we are going to be a full player on the federal scene, we have to play with everything, and that means both languages.
For example, the federal minister yesterday introduced a bill to revamp the Official Languages Act, so these comments are timely. There are only three provinces left which after this year will not have French in the judicial system, one of them being British Columbia. So we are going to be out of it, and that is not reasonable. Apart from this fact, which is nice to reiterate, if we agree that we have a problem we have to think about what we're going to do. In the school system, some school boards have, in the words of some parents,"tried to jam French down our throats," or "force French upon the children." There is a court case in Sooke right now — which is in the paper again this very morning — where some parents are asking for something, and we're not sure what will happen in the court system. But instead of pushing the system down, as is seen by many parents, I think we have to create in the minds of parents that their children will be the losers if we don't speak both official languages — and indeed many more, for that matter — and they will then ask the school boards to deliver education in both languages. This is not going to be cheap. My understanding is that right now we
[ Page 2077 ]
spend about $10 million in B.C. every year, and it disappears quite quickly, as we can see.
I don't want to give the impression that we must be bilingual or that we will force it down people's throats; I want it to be understood and sought and requested. That's the way we'll be full players in federalism, and that's the way we'll be full players in Canada. That is why we should create, in the minds of every citizen of British Columbia, the knowledge that more opportunity exists if we treat French-language training as a mind-expanding opportunity. That is the thrust of my presentation this morning.
MS. EDWARDS: I don't think you've said a word that I disagree with. I think bilingualism is an important idea. It's an important cultural approach to things and can mean far more to someone who is bilingual than a simple issue of talking to somebody in their own language. It goes far beyond that.
We definitely were established as a bilingual country, and anybody who reads the British North America Act knows that that is true. That's for very good reasons, which I certainly won't go into chapter and verse; I do have an expert to whom I could refer you, if anybody needs to know.
The point is, as a teacher of language myself on occasion, I'm sometimes amazed at the lack of knowledge that young students have about language, about image, about the use of language and those kinds of things. If you're going to learn vocabulary, syntax and grammar, which are the elements of language, you don't learn them in the English language in our educational system, but you may learn them if in fact you learn another language. It almost comes out of some mouths as a foreign language. French is not a foreign language, and I think you made that very clear, too. I think on every count — not just the cultural count, but also in the trade and commercial areas that you've talked about — it's very important that we talk about having our children learn two languages, whether or not they have two languages in the home.
What's happening is that there has been a whole lot of encouragement from parents these days. You were talking about wanting to have people understand, seek and request French language in the schools, and that seems to be happening. It's happening, I think, throughout the whole part of the province. Unfortunately, right now there's a lot of going back and forth, not only because of costs but partly because we don't have the qualified people who could teach, primary necessarily, or whatever's happening. I think we have to give all the help that we can to this resource. I want to get to a point where, when we say something like "au courant," everybody doesn't think we're talking about currant wine.
I would like to end now. I want to give an opportunity to my colleague, who may be able to say a few words in French a little better than I would, and perhaps even improve on your initial words.
MS. CAMPBELL: I'd like to take the opportunity to address this subject as well. I can speak French, but I would like to be understood in the House, so I will refrain.
I just want to add to the comments of my colleague from Vancouver South. One of the themes that has been discussed at some length in this government and in this House recently is the theme of estrangement of British Columbia from central Canada and the frustration of British Columbia — in terms of both its government and its people — with the failure of central Canada and particularly the federal government to understand what British Columbia is about, to understand our potential, to understand what kind of people we are.
Political scientists identify two distinct political cultures in Canada, one being Quebec and one being British Columbia. We've had discussions this morning about transport and the failure of transport policies to reflect British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, I served as a chairman of the Vancouver School Board, and I have been a very strong advocate of French immersion. Just very briefly, in order to allow somebody else to make one more comment on this subject, I want to say that when I support French immersion and when I have supported French programs throughout our schools, I have made the single point: that we will never take our place fully in Confederation until the federal civil service is full of bilingual British Columbians.
MR. LOVICK: Monsieur president, je voudrais parler en franqais pour quelquefois, et les raisons sont symboliques. D'abord, f6licitations an deput6 de Vancouver-Sud. Il a soulign6 le principe tr~s important pour tous canadiens, le principe d'6galit6 entre les deux peuples fondateurs du Canada, et c'est tr~s important en Colombie-Britannique.
I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that I want to congratulate the member opposite for his comments, because it seems to me he has emphasized and expressed a fundamental principle about Canadian society which we too often forget, namely the principle as enunciated in the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Culture: the principle of equality between the two founding peoples of our country. I thank the member for his comments. I think all of us can indeed appreciate the wisdom of those comments.
[10:45]
MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that we've had French spoken in this chamber today; indeed we've had it before. I would say, with the wisdom of the Speaker we had previous to your fine service, sir, and to the members of the House, that it was accepted without comment, which is not the occasion of every other province.
I'm glad to see that there's a lot of harmony in this House, because if there is harmony here on a useful subject that is, in my view, an imperative for our province as a player, then indeed it will be seen, I hope, in our constituency reports and in our opportunities to transmit our thoughts and ideas to our B.C. electors. The message will go again and again, until finally, as everybody on this side and the other side has said, there is a recognition that we cannot be full players in federal Canada unless we speak both languages. I thank the members opposite for the support they have given to the subject — not to me, but to the subject — and I hope that it will encourage a speedier development of bilingualism in British Columbia.
OPEN GOVERNMENT
MR. JONES: Legislatures like this and our system of government were established to challenge the divine right of kings. Some cynics would say that little has changed since hat day, because today we have the divine right of cabinet, and in some instances the divine right of Premiers, and that we have a dictatorship between elections.
I think we know better than that, Mr. Speaker; we have a representative democracy and good representation. But I think we can do much better than that. We have the ability to do better and, in fact, we have the responsibility to do better,
[ Page 2078 ]
in terms of developing a better system of government, a more open government.
The throne speech introduced last March had at least a dozen items that spoke to open government. We must assume in that instance that the government has a real commitment to open government, and this is a good thing. We have certainly seen some indicators of movement in this direction; and this side of the House has certainly supported those things.
I would like to raise one of the items mentioned in the throne speech. It's listed as a priority item, and I quote: "As a priority, my government will expand the number and roles Of the all-party committees of this assembly and will ask the members to become more involved in the business of our parliament." I don't think I've been asked, Mr. Speaker. I think that's an excellent statement in the throne speech, and I think we're still waiting on this side of the House. We want to establish real working committees in this Legislature to deal with the critical issues of the times, like the unemployment problem in this province, which we suggested to the government.
We want to see all committees of this Legislature, particularly the Public Accounts Committee and several others, have the time and the staff to do the job that they have the responsibility to do — in the case of the Public Accounts Committee, to accurately monitor the spending of government. We should also restore another old committee, the committee that dealt with Crown corporations — an excellent committee.
We should have commissions that are going around this province, like the Sullivan commission and the Fisher commission and other bodies. The ombudsman's report could be dealt with by an all-party committee dealing with public reports that come from those bodies to all-party committees of this Legislature.
Another area in which we can move to open government is in the area of technology. Certainly today we have all kinds of technology that can bring people closer to government and the government closer to people. One of those was mentioned in the throne speech, and I quote again: "And since government's business is everybody's business, my government will act to provide coverage of the Legislature on television and radio by late fall." That was a promise in the throne speech. Because this is the people's business conducted here, the people want to know how their representatives operate in this chamber. They want to know, and they don't accept any excuses of cost. Certainly the cost hasn't changed since March 10, Mr. Speaker.
Another area is that the government should proclaim the Financial Information Act. This was an act that required detailed disclosure by boards, agencies and Crown corporations, and it's my understanding that that was passed in 1985 and never proclaimed. Another area that was mentioned the other day was that we establish — some kind of legislative agenda so that the government, the opposition and the people of this province can have some idea of the order of business that's going to be conducted in this chamber — the people's business — and so that they know, and, if they want to come here and observe, they can have some rough idea of when to appear.
The final item that I would like to mention, and the most important item, is that this parliament pass freedom of information legislation. This is legislation that would guarantee the right of the public to know the role and policy of government, to know the information on which decisions of government are based, decisions made on behalf of the public, so that they can evaluate the wisdom of those decisions.
How many times have we seen the desire expressed for this kind of thing? No more than a couple of. days ago, the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) asked, in terms of the Board of Internal Economy, how the public is going to see how its money is spent by this board. Where is the accountability?
The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) in the Bill 19 discussion mentioned the Industrial Relations Council and their information-gathering in terms of negotiations in this province. How is the public going to become aware of those pieces of information? The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has recently been asking for information on tendering practices of this government. This is public information, and the public does have the right to know information that affects their health, safety and economic well-being.
They also have the right to know poll results that they pay for. This was promised at one point in the last election, and we haven't seen any of that. The public want to know. They have the right to know. The ombudsman has pointed this out; the federal government and other provinces in this country have such legislation. Now is not the time to be lagging behind other provinces or to be dragging our feet on this issue.
We need freedom of information legislation, we need a legislative agenda, we need improved technology to bring government and people closer together, and we need an improved committee system in this House. Now is the time to move boldly on these initiatives to move towards real open government.
HON. MR. VEITCH: To reply to the hon. member for Burnaby North, I first came into this chamber in 1975-76, not as long ago as some other members. I've seen a tremendous evolution in the openness of government, and by and large it's been for the better. I've also seen an evolution in the role of committees in this House, and at this point I must commend the hon. second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) for the way she's handling the public accounts committee. I don't always agree with her, but I'm saying there's been less rancour and it's been a better committee than we've ever had. The reason for that committee's evolving and doing a better job is attitude. You can have things whatever way you want in this House; you can have things work in committees whatever way you want. If you want to go there and spend all of your time being overtly political, then nothing will get done. I must say, to the great commendation of the present chairman and members of that committee, that it hasn't been the style of that committee, and we can look forward to great things emanating from it.
There are two parts to this Legislature, though, hon. member. What you have is a legislative branch of which we are all a part, under our system, and we have the executive branch of government. The executive branch is not unlike the executive in any organization. It is there to do just that: to carry out the executive functions, to run the day-to-day affairs of government. That is not the job of the Legislature as a whole; under our system, that is the job of ministers or representatives of the Crown.
Under the British system, which we have adopted here, one has to be very careful that we don't move too far towards
[ Page 2079 ]
that republican system of government in the States, where everything is committeed to death and where they have committees upon committees, spending millions upon millions of dollars for bureaucracies that really labour and bring forth nothing. We have every right, and indeed you have every opportunity in this Legislature during question period, as a representative of your particular public, to ask questions of ministers and to have those questions answered and to bring out that information.
We talk about television and radio. There is a tremendous expense involved in putting television into this chamber without disturbing its integrity — a very different system than in Saskatchewan, where you have a cable system that runs throughout the province and it's very easy to hook into it. Here we need uplinks to satellites and all those things. I believe the government is still committed to looking at the television situation to bring it forward. But government has no funding of its own in these times when we hear many complaints from my colleagues across the floor about what government ought to be doing with its funds and how it ought to be deploying the money available to it. I would wonder how kindly the public of British Columbia would look on us right now in spending millions upon millions of dollars to put television into the chamber at this time.
There are other ways of doing it. I believe you have a Board of Internal Economy which will be open to the government and which can be.... Vote 1 is always available, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to look at during estimates and to lay those facts bare before the Legislature. The fact that it's not done is certainly.... It's up to the members to examine any vote of this Legislature. You do have a Board of Internal Economy which can deal with television, radio and any of the things included in the way we operate this House. I think that has been a move in the correct direction, and the board in its embryonic stages has been working very well. I agree with you that as much information as possible ought to be made available. There are times, though, my friend, when things must be handled in the executive fashion. At some point, of course, that information has to be made available to the public.
As for polling, we're doing very little if any polling in this government, so that's why you haven't seen any of the results of those polls.
I want to commend the member and ask him to talk to his members of the Board of Internal Economy on his concerns.
MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague from Burnaby, the hon. Provincial Secretary, suggests that partisan activity is the reason the committees haven't been sitting and operating. He knows that that is not the case. He knows the case is that those committees have not been given any business by this government, and that's why they haven't been operating.
He talks about the executive branch as if it were something way above the people. The executive branch conducts the people's business.
The Provincial Secretary talks about the millions of dollars. I can't believe that a government would put a statement in the throne speech when they have not researched the costs of television in this Legislature. The Provincial Secretary still does not know the costs of television if he thinks it costs millions and millions. All he has to do is check with what's happening in other provinces that have such systems. If it was too much money, then it was too much money on March 10, when we saw the throne speech. It wasn't too much money then, so it's not too much money now. If it's a priority of government — and it's important to the people to see their representatives and bring government into the twentieth century — then I think the money should be found.
[11:00]
I would like to emphasize freedom-of-information legislation, because it was an idea that the now-Premier supported in 1982, at least for municipalities. It was an idea that the former Attorney-General supported, or at least presented to cabinet in that same year. Apparently it was dropped because of the restraint program, and I hope we are moving beyond that.
I would like to comment on another statement made in the throne speech about crossroads. It indicated that we were at a crossroads, and that we can walk the traditional path of doubt and distrust, wasting our energies and time in partisan political strife, or we can step out together on the new road that leads to a more secure future for all British Columbians. I think we have made some suggestions along that road. I believe that freedom-of-information legislation is important, and I have served notice that I intend to table a private member's bill on freedom of information. I hope the government will pay attention and will see fit to consider this kind of legislation.
I expect the government to fulfil its commitment in the throne speech to implement television in this Legislature, and by the date indicated in the throne speech. This is the people's business being conducted here. The people have a right to know, they want to know, and they want to see how their representatives are representing them.
I also hope that the elected members will be able to function more effectively by participating in an all-party system that deals with the real business of the people, and that we do have a legislative timetable in which to consider the operations of government.
I would suggest that it's time that we do move forward to open government. Do we take pride in this Legislature and this parliament, that we will go down in history as the parliament that let the sun shine in and let fresh air into the business of British Columbians?
MR. SPEAKER: Shall the second member for Vancouver East have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
MR. BARNES: In our gallery is a constituent of mine, Miss Rosalind Milner, who is a friend of the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). I would like the House to make her welcome.
Presenting Reports
Ms. Campbell presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations, which was taken as read and received.
MS. CAMPBELL: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: Approved.
[ Page 2080 ]
MS. CAMPELL: I'd like to express my appreciation for the courtesy of all of the members of the committee in expediting the business that was before us.
Ms. Marzari tabled the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was taken as read and received.
MS. MARZARI: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.
MR. SPEAKER: All in favour? Agreed.
MS. MARZARI: I move that the bill be taken as read and received,
Motion approved.
MS. MARZARI: As I sit here today signing documents for the disposal of years and years of accumulated duplicate records and records that are no longer useful for government purposes, I must comment that I have been most impressed, as I read through most of these documents, by the professional performance of both the records managements branch and the Provincial Archives of British Columbia. Mr. Reuben Ware and Mr. John Bovey have done a very fine job indeed, with their staff, of preparing these documents and preparing their rationale for disposal or retention. I would like to say this for the record.
MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move to committee stage on Bills PR402 and PR406.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.
VICTORIA FOUNDATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill PR402, Victoria Foundation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill PR406, Mr. Speaker.
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA FOUNDATION
ACT, 1979 AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
The House in committee on Bill PR406; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill PR406, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker.
COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT
MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill PR403, as amended in the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, now be read a second time.
Just for the information of the members of this House, the Columbia Bible College has been in existence in the Clearbrook community and has formed an integral part of the Clearbrook community for the last 25 years. Initially it was a two-year diploma-granting college, and has operated under that condition for some 20 years. For the last few years it has been offering a three-year bachelor of religious education degree, and the basic studies undertaken are biblical studies, church ministries and missions.
The Columbia Bible College has been, as I said, an integral part of our community. The students of the college take part in various community services to people as well as to the community itself. The college has candidate status with the American Association of Bible Colleges; this provides for credit transfers to other bible colleges or to some universities in North America. The college, which is owned and operated as a cooperative endeavour between the Mennonite Brethren and the Conference of Mennonite Churches in British Columbia, does not discriminate on the basis of denomination, race, colour, sex, national or ethnic origin in its admission, educational and financial policies.
Because of the high educational standards of the Columbia Bible College, I urge the House to support this bill, which will provide a theological degree-granting status to this college.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate on the curriculum at the Columbia Bible College.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we're not in committee yet.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: The member would close second reading debate if he spoke again. He might want to answer those questions at that time.
[ Page 2081 ]
MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly provide a lot more information at committee stage, but I would prefer not to do it at this time. I would therefore move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Bill PR403 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered, with leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill PR403, Columbia Bible College Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT
The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. WILLIAMS: Would the member give us some more details on the curriculum at this college?
MR. DE JONG: The Columbia Bible College is providing basic biblical studies that provide for a practical working knowledge of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It also provides for theological and historical studies which guide into a maturity of understanding of biblical doctrine and development of Christian thought, and the practical studies provide the skills for effective Christian service and ministries. The general studies will help in acquiring a broadened understanding of human thought, society and culture, as well as developing skills in different forms of communication.
[11:15]
MR. ROSE: I was wondering about this college, since it has been there for a long time. Are there any particular admission requirements? The member suggested that it is open to everybody regardless of race, creed and colour. Are there admission requirements or any kind of pledges that they have to offer in order to gain admission — a student, for instance?
MR. DE JONG: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. There are no requirements. As I said earlier, there is no discrimination of any kind against any type of religion, colour, creed or whatever.
MR. ROSE: If someone, say, were a Sikh or a Jew or a Moslem or an atheist and wished to enroll there, he'd be welcome.
MR. DE JONG: That's what I would read into those general guidelines.
MR. ROSE: I wonder if there are any dress codes or any kind of political saliva tests you have to pass before you're permitted to enroll at Columbia. What academic requirements are necessary for admission?
MR. DE JONG: The basic requirements are for any student wishing to receive an education. I read those general guidelines just a minute ago. If someone, as I understand, coming from a different culture or religion wishes to follow this line of study, he will not be excluded from the school. He, in fact, will be permitted to follow the courses.
MS. EDWARDS: I understand that the theological degree can be granted. Is that after a three-year term of study? If so, as I understand it, that must be the only three-year degree in British Columbia. Is that correct?
MR. DE JONG: I can answer the first part of the question. It is based on the three-year course that's offered by the Columbia Bible Institute. I'm not aware of whether there are any other colleges in British Columbia of a three-year nature.
MS. EDWARDS: Does this college articulate with other British Columbia universities and post-secondary institutions.
MR. DE JONG: This college belongs to the American Association of Bible Colleges, and there are a number of them throughout British Columbia as well as throughout all North America. Of course, this degree-granting status would make it that much easier to transfer students and their credits from one college to another. That's really the purpose of this request.
MS. EDWARDS: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the articulation goes on only among the colleges that are run by the institute, but there is no articulation with other post-secondary institutions in the province.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's correct.
MR. BLENCOE: I have a couple of questions. I'm wondering if the member can tell us how this college differs from the theological college in Vancouver. What are the general principles and direction?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we go on, it's certainly a valid question, hon. member, but I don't think it falls under section 3. However, if the second member for Central Fraser Valley wishes to answer it at this point, it's quite all right with the Chair.
MR. DE JONG: I have no particular knowledge of the college that the member is speaking about in Vancouver, so if there is someone here that does know about the college in Vancouver, we could compare notes and perhaps you might be able to enlighten me on that.
MR. BLENCOE: Why does the member feel that we need another college, when we do have a theological college in Vancouver which serves a broad section of religious doctrines, etc.?
AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?
[ Page 2082 ]
MR. BLENCOE: I've just asked; it's a reasonable question. Why is there a feeling that this one is necessary?
MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Columbia Bible College, which was known as the Columbia Bible School for a number of years.... As I said earlier, they have provided a real service not only to the young people in our community, but to many young people throughout British Columbia. As they have expanded their college to a three-year term to provide for degree-granting status, and being recognized by other Bible colleges throughout North America, I really don't see any reason why they shouldn't have it. They have a good student body, they have excellent staff, and it's a highly recognized college, not only in our community but throughout British Columbia.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against this?
MR. LOVICK: I don't think anybody on this side of the House is against, and I'd certainly like to clarify that. I served on the committee that discussed this bill, and all of us on the committee I think assumed speedy passage. Nevertheless, some people had questions.
I'm standing to make one point for the record, to clarify. Under section 3,"Objects," I would like to emphasize that it is indeed not open to all, and that is as it should be. Rather, take note that it says: "The objects of the college are to provide Christian training for people of any race, colour or Christian creed." Not all creeds, but Christian creed. The discussion that went on some five or ten minutes ago I think suggested something other than that. So just to clarify, this is indeed a very particular, specific area of instruction for a very particular and specific group of people.
Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I or my colleagues have any difficulty supporting this bill.
Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved.
Title approved..
MR. DE JONG: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill PR403, Columbia Bible College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to make a summary statement, and then we can proceed with the votes for the ministry.
Just more or less in wrapping up, I think the debate that we've had over the last couple of days has been a very useful one, and a learning experience, I suspect, for both myself and the minister. I want to make a couple of comments about some of the things that I learned and some of the things that, while I was fairly clear on them, it was interesting to have come out in the debate, and it's worth commenting on,
I'd like to start with the concept of some words, the way we use words and how they relate to the Ministry of Environment. We made some comments about special wastes and the need to deal with that issue straight on rather than dress it out, the need to acknowledge that these are hazardous wastes, and very toxic. They're wastes that our society should be concerned about, and they're not particularly special.
The other phrase is "industrial park." I have come to have a new appreciation of that phrase. As a community activist, the words industrial park always intrigued me. Coming from my constituency, industrial parks meant actual industrial development. I was always perplexed at the usage of that word, because I didn't particularly, see any park atmosphere about them.
Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment and Parks puts another definition on industrial parks in this province: that is, the multi-use concept of our parks system and the park reserve areas, which allow extract resource industries in parks. That makes a rather sad usage of the words "industrial park," a use that I would suggest is not at all compatible and makes a bit of a mockery of our parks system as it presently exists.
I think it's been very clear, through the estimates, the number of times — at one point I thought I might count the number of times — that the minister referred to industries and industry's perspective, and the number of times he actually protected industry's interest in our discussion and was the spokesperson for industry.
I suggest to the minister that industry is a significant player in the environment, but I suggest that there is a conflict there, and that his priorities should be the health and safety of communities and the preservation of heritage in his particular position and responsibility. I suggest that his representing and being the spokesperson for industry is wrong-headed.
On the issue of enforcement and monitoring, while it seems to be, at this point — unfortunately there hasn't been time to take a look at all of the information the minister finally presented to the House with regard to enforcement, variance orders, permits and non-compliance.... It is, however, very clear that the information data base and the services are still not to the point where they can deal significantly or in a manageable way with the access of contaminants to the environment. I believe there is a considerable amount of work that needs to be done there for the protection of both human health and community.
I'd like to reinforce my call for data dealing with bioaccumulation of contaminants in the environment. There is no way we can possibly have an enforcement or a permitting system in this province that makes any sense without that kind of data. There is no way that we can deal with enforcing permits in this province without understanding the level of saturation of the environment that any increase in the contaminant will cause.
[ Page 2083 ]
I want to stress the point of access to information for community groups and the right to know. Not only should the ministry have a complete data base to draw on, but the communities should have free access to that data base so they can have confidence in the work of the ministry and confidence that their interests are being served. At this point, that data base not only is not available for the ministry, but any information that is available at times becomes too complicated for community-based groups to access.
I want to again emphasize — this is a point that we made in the estimates — the need to minimize costs. While the ministry obviously needs — and I think it is being reinforced from both sides of the House — support in the House for the Environment ministry and for the concept of environment in this province, there is a blatant need for support for that ministry both in priorities of the government and in budget.
[11:30]
If the minister is saying that he has adequate budget.... I believe the other comment the minister made was that he, as any other minister, would not say for a moment that he couldn't use more staff. I want to make the point that the priorities set by the ministry could deal with some of the restrictions that the ministry has with funding and staffing by dealing more with minimizing costs through supporting and enforcing the concepts of recycling, resource recovery and alternative usages of hazardous waste in industry. By the use of that kind of strategy, you would minimize the end result of having to deal with facilities and having to deal with enforcement and clean-up costs later.
Although the minister has clearly identified that we have different philosophies and different priorities, I want to mention again the study that I introduced the debate on, the study done by the World Commission on Environment and Development named "Our Common Future: From One Earth to One World," and again make the point that any concept governing a ministry of environment has to be a broad concept that deals with our place in the overall environment here in B.C.
I want to emphasize to the minister that the days of development — leaving nothing more for the memory than names like Eagle Ridge, Osprey Lookout, Meadow Lake Trail or Bear Creek Park — hopefully are gone. We need to preserve the actual habitat of those animals instead of naming industrial areas or subdivisions after the species that once used to live there.
I want to emphasize, when we're dealing with issues of waste management, that we no longer can use examples.... I'll use the example of Bear Creek Park, a beautiful park in the middle of Surrey with a lovely playing-field. It used to be a garbage dump, and I suspect that's why the bears were there. Now we're in a situation of the children of that community playing on that field and coming home with their soccer uniforms smelling of leachate because it is still percolating up through the playing-field.
I want to emphasize another point: we can no longer afford the Ministry of Environment to be the ministry of rebuilding urban development, restoring natural habitat, rehabilitating wild lands or reforesting. This ministry has to be perceived as a ministry of compatible economic development that is sustainable, economic development that provides long-term jobs and security, and economic development that does not pass the costs of that development onto future generations for clean-up and health costs.
With that, I'd like to end the debate of the Ministry of Environment.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I promise the committee I won't filibuster this, but I would like to thank the member for her comments and for the debate we've had over the past few days. I will address the items she mentioned.
The concept of the words "special wastes." You're absolutely right, Madam Member. It may be a euphemism in the act, but we do use the terms "hazardous" and "toxic," and there is no question that they are. I guess we could have a semantic discussion — not debate — on that. But you're absolutely correct, and that terminology is used in the legislation.
The idea of protecting industry. I guess because of my background in the area I come from, I do have more knowledge about that particular sector and the pulp mill industry. Because of that knowledge, I might have come across as appearing to protect the industry, but I want to impress upon the committee that my comments were simply to indicate what improvements industry has made with respect to cleaning up the air shed and also with respect to what responsibilities I see them having.
Enforcement and monitoring. Yes, we have variance orders, and we are concerned about containment. That flows into access to information, and I can assure the member that if at any time she does require information, please let me know and we'll provide what we can. We want everyone in the province to know what we're doing, and we want everyone to know that we're using up-to-date information.
As I indicated last night, — we do have an example in Kitimat of a community planning process. It's been in place for some time, I would think, since Kitimat's been around since the early fifties. That's also a recommendation for Elkford, one which is in our ministry policy, and which I would encourage.
In terms of budget priorities, the member makes a very good point. I was pleased to see a pretty good increase in our budget for this year. I didn't take this particular budget to Treasury Board, so I wasn't responsible for priorities. But I think maybe it's incumbent upon me and the deputy, who is also new to this ministry, to have a look at what our priorities ought to be. Maybe within that set dollar amount, we can rearrange them if we suspect there's a stronger need for one vote as opposed to another. Your comments are correct. I guess priorities would vary from year to year, depending on how you saw different needs coming to you and how different situations developed, or what you wanted to prioritize as a personal commitment as a minister.
You are right about the royal commission. We have a broad concept in place in the world and the planet, and I guess everyone who lives here and who reads about what we are doing to ourselves has a concern about how Environment and various ministries and actions by governments will impact upon the world we're going to have to live in for the next...whatever.
Just as an aside, let me make a pitch for our province. Probably the most substantial and significant environmental impact we could have upon Canada would be to have the province of Ontario buy low-sulphur B.C. coal, which would greatly reduce, as the member knows, the acid rain problem in eastern Canada. That is a significant problem. It's affecting Ontario and also the eastern United States.
[ Page 2084 ]
In terms of waste management, I don't think I'm going to say much more, because I think we're going to have a good time in another forum, during committee stage, discussing the whole waste management position. Let me advise you that from a parliamentary process point of view, when we get into the Waste Management Amendment Act that's currently before the House, it allows for complete discussion of the whole act that's being amended. I have no problem with discussing everything that's proposed there and the act in its entirety, in the form of the amendments.
With that said, I'll thank the member for some very interesting and, as we both agreed, informative debate. We both learned — I certainly did — and I think that was good. Thank you.
Vote 29 approved on division.
Vote 30: ministry operations, $135,466,990 — approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.
ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 1.
AN HON. MEMBER: If you crossed the floor, you'd get a better seat.
MR. CASHORE: I'm not about to cross the floor so I can get a better seat. I think I'll stay right here in my small comer — I'm becoming accustomed to it, and I'm getting to enjoy it.
AN HON. MEMBER: "You in your small comer, and I in mine."
MR. CASHORE: Yes, Jesus bids us shine — I heard that.
I want to be very serious here for a few moments, because it's a very serious section that we're discussing. It's the first time in my experience that I have been in the committee stage of a bill that only has one section. With regard to this section, I have some questions I would like to ask the minister that are somewhat reminiscent of some of my comments yesterday, but they have a greater amount of specificity, and I would like to be able to deal with those in that way.
I'd like to refer to the fact that in October 1986, the minister issued a message to the people of British Columbia inviting people to respond with regard to their thoughts on the issue of an adoption registry. The minister at that time suggested that there were actually three options. One would be an active registry; another would be a passive registry; a third option would be to maintain the status quo. I would like to ask the minister if he will table the document that outlines the results of the survey, that was based on the more than 1,000 submissions he referred to yesterday. Will the minister table the document that came out of that survey for this House?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.
MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell me if a document entitled "A Background Paper on the Establishment of an Adult Adoption Disclosure Registry exists. Does such a document exist?
[11:45]
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't answer and be absolutely sure of my facts.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if having taken that question on notice and if discovering that such a document in fact does exist, will he then table it in this House?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.
MR. CASHORE: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have knowledge that this document exists, and I would like to say that....
Interjection.
MR. CASHORE: Why did I ask the question? Because I am referring to.... It will become apparent as this process goes on today, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to answers that the minister gave yesterday. I am going to suggest that the information the minister has suggests that had he followed through in good faith on the consultative process, the legislation that we would be debating at this time would be much different from what we have before us. That's why I am asking the question, and that's why I appreciate, but I'm not happy with, the answer that the minister has given. That's why I'm going to share some of the information that I understand to be enclosed within that document.
You might title my comment as "So Much for Consultation." The minister said that over 1,000 people responded. I understand on the basis of his earlier "no" that he's not going to answer, so I'm not going to sit down every time, but if the minister makes a move to stand, I will gladly sit down.
Is it not true that there were 1,087 responses? And is it not true that of those 1,087 responses, 1,018 — 96.6 percent — favoured some change? Yesterday the minister referred to over 96 percent, which I appreciated. Of 1,087 responses, 1,018 favoured some change.
I'll move on to the next point. This is where the information that was not forthcoming yesterday, and should have been forthcoming, gives cause for real sorrow on my part. As I have said all the way through this process, I saw this as a subject that is better served through a conciliatory process, through consensus, rather than through an adversarial process.
[ Page 2085 ]
It gives me very much sorrow to report to the House at this time that of the 1,087 who responded, 793 — or 75.2 percent — in fact favoured an active registry, meaning that 100 out of the 1,087 who responded, or a mere 9.5 percent favoured a passive registry. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that when you asked for public response, you pledged to heed that public response? Is it not true? You pledged that you would listen to the input of the public, and that that would be reflected in the result? Is that not true?
Mr. Chairman, in 1985 the position that we put forward — I would have to say on that continuum that I referred to yesterday between a very passive registry and a very active registry — actually in the scheme of things would probably be more on the side of a passive registry. This is a very complex kind of an issue, and it took quite a while for me to even perceive that, but I would have to say now that although the position we took in 1985 was much advanced — a giant step — the government's position is a very small step.
We are aware of the response that the public gave in good faith to the minister. We are prepared to change our position to one that favours an active registry, given the kind of support that we have from people like Dean Ralph Garber, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, and many, many organizations and individuals. A total of 1,018 people responded to the minister saying that they favour an active registry. So much for consultation in this province, Mr. Minister. We've listened to the public response, and we're prepared to go on record as saying that we support an active adoption registry.
I would like to ask the minister once more, in fairness to all the people who submitted their responses to his request in good faith, will the minister table the background paper on the establishment of an adoption disclosure registry? Yes or no?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I've already answered twice, and the answer is no. The member obviously has the complete report and the numbers, and I indicated yesterday that they were such. A lot of deliberation went into choosing whether to go to an active adoption registry or to make that first step to a passive registry. We covered this yesterday. That doesn't mean we didn't consult with people, but it does mean that the responses were mainly from adoptees. I can't give you the exact numbers, but there are unquestionably thousands and thousands of British Columbians out there who did not respond to our request for information or for their thoughts on an adoption registry.
So we felt, after much deliberation and consultation, that the way to go was to a passive adoption registry, which we have done, and which we are going to do. It is a giant step forward — no matter what the member says — from what we have had. It's the first change to the act in something like 67 years. The need is clearly there. As I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, if after an appropriate number of years we determine, or some other minister determines, to make the next step to an active registry, that's something that can be decided; the mechanism will be in place, and it will be a very easy step to make. But in all fairness to those who don't want any kind of a registry — and there were a few; a very vocal few — and to those who would like to be part of a decision as to whether people should be reunited, we decided to go with the passive registry. It is meeting with approval by the majority of British Columbians. Although the group that would like an active registry is very vocal — there's no question about it — we feel they are still the minority of the population.
So we're going to go with the act as it is amended here under Bill 26. We feel it's not only a giant step forward, but a very good and progressive step, and it brings us into line with the thinking of the majority of people in the 1980s.
MR. CASHORE: I think the comments of the minister confirm a point that has been made a few times in this House, but perhaps in the clearest, most succinct and condemning way. When this government talks about consultation, it is talking about a false hope. I think this comment that we just heard from the minister makes that very clear. Since 75.2 percent of those responding to his request for information favoured an active registry, would the minister tell this House just what the percentage would have to be before he would feel that he should perhaps start to make another step along this road? I would like the minister to give us some indication. Would it have to be 99 percent, 99.9 percent? How can you send a message to the people of British Columbia to take you seriously when in the future you ask for input on issues such as this?
I hope the minister will answer that, but I'm going to toss in a couple more questions now. Referring to clause 1, section 13.1(2) of the Adoption Act, the persons who may be recorded and identify themselves are "persons adopted in British Columbia" and "the natural parents of persons adopted in British Columbia." I would like to ask the minister why the registry would not include persons adopted in other provinces, and why it would be restricted to the natural parents; why it would omit siblings and the extended family.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe we covered these points at second reading yesterday. I did make the remark, in my opening statements to the amendment, that at some future date we may expand the list to include siblings or extended family; that's something, again, that may be a step taken in years hence.
For all of the member's political pomposity in trying to make points on this and saying that the government doesn't consult, it's a lot of hot air, Mr. Chairman, just a lot of hot air....
Interjection.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: ...such as is coming out of the member for Vancouver East at the moment.
We're supposed to be at the committee stage of a bill, discussing the technicalities of the bill. These points were all covered yesterday in second reading, but for some reason, the member now wants to make political points. He said it was 75.2 percent, but the key phrase was "of those responding" — special interest groups who responded. We took that into account, Mr. Chairman, to try to be fair to everyone...
MR. RABBITT: All the people.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: ... to try to be fair to all the people of British Columbia, as we have done with all the legislation we've introduced. It doesn't come down on the side of special interest groups, as the members opposite always seem wont to do; they represent special interest
[ Page 2086 ]
groups. We believe this bill represents the best interests of all British Columbians.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the minister that in the comments I made, I did not use unparliamentary language. I used language that was appropriate for this House, given the circumstances.
I would like to ask, moving on to (3), why it would only be "adult," and only at a person's request. The third question is: what about the need that relates to a person's health concerns, in terms of searching for their roots? How is that addressed in this legislation?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that health and medical information has always been shared with adoptees and adoptive parents. That is nothing new, that will not change, and it has always been shared.
MR. CASHORE: Moving on to (4), it states: "The identity of a person who adopts a child shall not be recorded.... I would like to ask why that is "shall not." Why is it so definite that that person, under any circumstances, would not be recorded? I don't understand what the point of that is.
[12:00]
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, Mr. Chairman, the member should read the full sentence: "The identity of a person who adopts a child shall not be recorded in the registry." The adoptive parents are recorded elsewhere in my ministry, but it says clearly "shall not be recorded in the registry."
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, looking at sections (3) and (4) in concert, I'm pleased to support the minister on this. They also recognize the rights and the emotional rights of the parents who adopt the children. Should just numbers of adoptees, who say,"I would like to know who my parents are," at any age...? What about the people who have gone out of their way to take in these children when someone else, in effect, abandoned them? They have taken in these children, and they have given their family and their emotions to these children. Should that be disregarded?
I know that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) was saying that consultation is based strictly on numbers of a group that can be polled. If that were the case, then all consultation would result in simply going to those with the greatest interest — in other words, adopted persons — and saying: "How do you vote?" Get a bunch of numbers and disregard the quality of those statements and the true emotional feelings of those parents who have adopted the children and considered them in every respect their very own. I don't think those people should be ignored.
So I think that to go to the passive registry when children reach the adult age is, as the minister says, a giant step, and I think it is fair to all concerned, not just to the poll of 1,000 adoptees in this province. It also considers the merits of those people who adopt them — their feelings — and their full adoption of those children into the family and considering them their own. I don't think we can disregard that, and certainly I don't think we can, every time legislation comes into this House, go out and do a survey, and then simply take it in numerical terms, disregard all of the other feelings and say that unless you do what some people ask, then we do not have proper consultation.
Suppose you went out to all of the drivers in this province and asked if they thought the speed limit should be higher, and you got a 60 percent majority of these drivers to say yes and then put it in legislation with a complete disregard for the engineering features of the highway and the safety of the rest of the public and school zones and that sort of thing. That would be consensus simply to take the interests of one group, who have a very vested interest, and disregard all of the feelings and all of the rights of the rest of society.
No, I think this government has to represent all of the people in this province, and that includes those parents who have adopted children and, for all intents and purposes, do consider them their very own. Those rights have to be respected as well.
MR. ROSE: I was just going to ask the Minister of Social Services and Housing a question. He said 1,000 people were sampled and 75 percent of them said they wanted an active registry. Did he actually sample the others, let's say the silent majority? Why is he guided by that great, mythical unsampled silent majority rather than the people who expressed themselves? They were the most concerned and probably the most....
Interjection.
MR. ROSE: When you get 75 percent of the vote, do you question the electorate? No, you take your seat and run with it. That's what you do.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.
MR. ROSE: The hon. minister argues on both sides of the fence when it suits him to do so and attempts to defend the indefensible. We are saying that if you don't intend to follow the representations and the advice of those people who gave it to you, then don't ask them. To ask them and not be guided by their advice is a fraudulent exercise.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have a couple of points I want to make. First of all, I resent the implication that it's a fraudulent exercise. We listen to everyone. That doesn't mean that we didn't take into account the people who wanted an active registry, but we also took into account those who wanted no change and those who wanted a passive registry.
After weighing all of the evidence and firmly realizing that those with a vested interest would be there in larger numbers, we decided to come down on the side of a passive registry. I would firmly suggest that if the member who is now leaving the chamber, who made that statement, and my critic opposite feel that strongly, then vote against the legislation. Please do.
Follow the courage of your convictions and stand up and vote against it when the vote is called for. If you feel that strongly, then have the courage of your convictions to say that we were wrong, that I was wrong in what I've done. You stand up and vote against it. I challenge you to do that right now. We do not — I repeat — represent just special interest
[ Page 2087 ]
groups, whether it be big labour, big management, big anything.
We represent all the people in this province. From the samplings that I've had and the phone calls and the mail, we are doing the right thing. The people are happy with what we're doing. There is always going to be a small group of people who are not happy with what we're doing. You seem to represent those people, so stand up and vote against it.
MR. CASHORE: I don't for a moment think that the comment we just heard was a political comment. I wouldn't for a moment make that suggestion. I said yesterday that in discussing this adoption issue, we're talking about a birthing process. When I think of the birthing process, I think of people learning to walk and taking their first hesitating steps.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you against it?
Interjections.
MR. CASHORE: This government is taking its first hesitating step, and I would not be one to stop that infant child from taking its first step. I would not be one to stop that infant child from at least getting started.
I would like to refer to the comments of the hon. Minister of Education.
MR. REE: On a point of order, I believe we are in committee and not in general debate on this. I might ask the member to be relevant to the particular section of debate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're right, hon. member, but there is nothing wrong with the relevancy that we've heard.
MR. CASHORE: I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Education that with regard to a couple of the points he made on consultation, he used the example of the public making comments on traffic and then engineering studies. If he was going to be consistent in his example, what he would have to say then is that when we're discussing this issue, who are the professionals? Not engineers, but social workers. I have information that I have cited in this debate from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, which has called for an active adoption registry.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: What about the parents?
MR. CASHORE: Parents were among those who responded to the minister's survey. Having said that, I would also like to say that the B.C. Association of Social Workers — if the minister is interested — has a more creative response to the very important issue the minister was raising. It's a very important issue about all people concerned, and about how they deal with it.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: After the age of ten you don't care about the kid anymore.
MR. CASHORE: Not to disregard what the minister is saying — I think the minister is raising an important point — the B.C. Association of Social Workers and adoption organizations are saying that you don't deal with that issue by denying access to information. You deal with it by a creative process of counselling, which enables all people to be winners in this process.
Interjection.
MR. CASHORE: Yes, as an adoptive parent I think I can tell you from firsthand experience that when my daughter started to raise questions about her roots, it was the most enriching experience for our entire family to participate in that search. We felt that we all grew as a result of having that opportunity, and I will cherish it all my life.
So I think it is unfortunate if the Minister of Education is seeking to suggest by what he is saying that he is representing all adoptive parents. In doing so, I think he is being very unfair, and I wish he would make it clear in this House that he does not wish to suggest that all adoptive parents support the position as he has described it. I would certainly think that if he did say that, he would be hearing from some people who were very upset.
MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to take much of the committee's time. I know the Lieutenant-Governor is anxious to get in here and get on with his busy schedule before he enjoys his weekend and plans his garden party for late July, but I wish to emphasize a slightly different point than what has been discussed here.
I think — I know — there is general agreement that there should be a registry of some sort. The point that I wish to raise is, I suppose, the civil libertarian point. I feel very strongly about this. I believe that when a citizen of Canada, or indeed a citizen of any country, has reached the age of majority — the age of 19 — that person has the right to any statistical information that the state has on their behalf. They have a right to go in and ask for any information and receive any information that this province — or indeed any province — may have on his origins, whether it be on the history of adoption or on blood parents.
I don't believe it matters a darn what any other individual thinks. Their blood parents, their natural parents, their adoptive parents — it doesn't really matter. Citizens, once they reach the age of majority, have a right to know what's on their personal record, and they should be able to go in and get that from vital stats. I would say this in this jurisdiction or in any other jurisdiction. I'm not shooting down the various arguments that we have heard for registries, because obviously a great deal of information about an individual's origins will not be on the vital statistical record in a given province. But anything on that record should be available to the individual once they have reached the age of majority.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I appreciate the member's remarks, It's a case that has been made many times by many people, and it's a good argument. In one sense I tend to agree with the member: that when a person has reached the age of majority, they should be entitled to all of this information.
On the other hand, let's take the other side of the argument, which I heard very eloquently as well. I could read you letters — very eloquent letters — from people who believe that the status quo should have been maintained, and there should be no registry. They have very strong feelings that they entered into a contract at the time they adopted their child, and that by establishing any sort of a registry we are breaching that contract. I could read you very eloquent testimony on that side of the argument too, and yet I appreciate
[ Page 2088 ]
your side. I tend to agree with you, and who knows — maybe in some future year not too far down the road there may be a challenge under the Charter of Rights, and they may even uphold such a statement as you've made. Those are two sides of the argument. The third side is from the natural parent who gave her child up for adoption and entered into a contract that that would be kept confidential. It may be a part of her life that is long past, and she doesn't want that resurrected.
So there are three sides, literally, to this argument; three distinct scenarios and three distinct positions. I've heard them all and they're all very eloquent, and one can agree with all three. That is why, not having the wisdom of King Solomon, say, we decided to come down on what we considered was, to repeat myself, a giant step forward: the establishment of a passive registry, which will please most, but naturally not please all. So we think we have come down where we should be on this.
[12:15]
The member says: "Who are the professionals in this?" I think it goes beyond professionalism. This is a very emotional issue, as you can tell, so it goes beyond professionalism. The B.C. Association of Social Workers are, I agree, professionals in social work, and I have the highest regard for them; but that doesn't mean they have all the answers when it comes to this. The parents and the children and the natural parents and the adoptive parents are all just as much professionals as are the social workers. So having assimilated all of the information, I again reiterate that we have come down with what we think is the best answer.
MR. GUNO: I must confess that I'm rising to make a point that I dealt with in second reading yesterday, but I want to canvass the minister's opinion about a technical and legal aspect of that point. We mentioned some concerns about the bill providing a passive reunion registry and how that relates to the concerns of native people in British Columbia. We talked about the fact that this bill does not recognize or provide for the fact that in the Indian communities, the sense of collectivity is paramount over any regard for individual rights. I'm not saying that they disregard them, but in terms of trying to protect their cultural identity, this is a priority.
I just want to remind the minister — and I'm just wondering if this has been considered — that that sense of collective right is recognized and affirmed in the constitution under the Charter in section 35. If we were to let this bill through without any provision for notifying the bands that a member is going to be adopted out of that community, then in a sense I think we will be in danger of depriving that person of the fundamental right which is recognized and affirmed under the Charter. I just want to canvass the minister's response to that.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member is right. We did canvass this yesterday at second reading, and I reiterate that the provision for consultation with bands and tribal councils is in the act. We do that, and we have no intention of changing that. But I do have to reiterate that while we respect the community rights of native peoples — or, for that matter, of any other people — we still feel that individual rights take precedence over such community rights.
MR. D'ARCY: I have to very rapidly take issue with the minister's belief that some people have a right to feel they have a contract that affects another individual — a free citizen, a taxpayer — once that person reaches the age of majority. People justified slavery the same way. They said: "We've got a contract over this person." It doesn't matter, Mr. Chairman. People don't have contracts over their wives or their husbands in terms of their individuality, and they don't have contracts over their children. When they reach the age of majority, natural parents or adoptive parents do not have contracts over those individuals. They are null and void, and totally invalid. Let's get away from this notion.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the member was misinterpreting what I said. I was merely putting forward the point made by adoptive parents. I didn't say I necessarily agreed with them, or that those contracts should be valid. I even made the point that I feel that before too long there will be a challenge under the Charter of Rights. I was merely making the point that it was made very eloquently to us that a lot of people feel very strongly about the "contract" that they entered into.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, these are my concluding remarks. I want to say that when the minister referred to my comment about social workers, I was responding to the point that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) had made about engineers and traffic studies. Of course, I agree with the minister. I agree that the people we really need to be listening to are those parents who responded to the survey. I think that is tremendously important.
I want to point out that in Dean Ralph Garber's report, he suggested that there are two kinds of information. One kind is non-identifying information, and the other is identifying information. When those two kinds of information are set side by side, it does show very clearly how an active adoption registry can work.
I have two other concerns about the bill. One is that there is not a provision covering the handling of what information goes out. Finally, while this has been a very spirited debate, all of us on this side of the House are nevertheless pleased to be able to take this small step, with all due respect to the kind of statements that have been said here today. We are going to vote in favour of this.
Interjections.
MR. CASHORE: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I'm doing so....
Interjections.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, could we please have some order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member.
MR. CASHORE: We're supporting this with some extremely difficult feelings, because it could have been so much better. When we look at the other provinces, five have passive registries and three have active. We could have been one more and we could have been showing the way.
I want to conclude with the words of Carl Sandburg, because part of what this is all about is a search for identity. He said: "When a society or civilization perishes, one condition can always be found: they forgot where they came from."
[ Page 2089 ]
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, this has gone on long enough and some very trivial points have been debated at length here. I do appreciate the fact that the member has said you're going to vote for this. I still have an inclination to call a division just to see if that is true, because after some of the debate that's gone on here, I feel that maybe two or three of your members would like to stand up and vote against this bill, and I would hate to deny them that opportunity.
However, taking the member at his word — that they're all going to vote for this giant step forward — I will just say in closing that I agree that this step is long overdue. I am pleased to be the minister that has recognized that and has brought it forward. I appreciate the spirited debate. I know the majority of British Columbia will be very happy with this amendment.
Section 1 approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 26, Adoption Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.
TAXATION (RURAL AREA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, sections 2 to 4 really deal with reducing the time in which property is forfeited to the Crown one year earlier for non-payment of property taxes. I want to ask the minister a question. There are two ways of looking at this. On the one hand, some individuals, I realize, during a period of high interest rates were in fact deliberately not paying taxes, and investing the money — and to get around that problem, I think, is completely legitimate. On the other hand, if lower income groups are unable to pay taxes, there is a problem in terms of potentially forfeiting property sooner than would otherwise be the case. Could the minister give us some indication in terms of the demographics of the individuals that this is really attempting to deal with? Does he have those kinds of numbers?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Chairman. It's not aimed at any demographic portion of the population; rather it's dealing with the status of property and its currency of tax payments. It doesn't have any demographic implication in that sense.
MR. CLARK: The minister can't tell us, then, who doesn't pay taxes now, and how this impacts on forfeitures. In other words, is there going to be an increase in the number of people that forfeit their property to the Crown because of shortening the time? If that's the case, then who does it affect?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have those figures with me, but I suspect that if we examine the issue, the fact would be that the vast majority of the dollar value involved would be owned by corporations who are taking advantage of the opportunity to delay the payment of their obligations.
The initiative here, and what we're doing with this amendment, is merely bringing our requirements regarding forfeiture, and therefore the obligation to pay, in line with what exists now with the Municipal Act. We are paralleling the Municipal Act, and, if anything, in the comparison we are slightly more generous in some relatively minor details.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 29, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 41.
REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the members for leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 2090 ]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, on behalf of our Speaker, I'd like you to welcome today to the assembly Peter Kent, the administrator of Whistler, and His Worship Drew Meredith, the mayor.
I am advised that His Honour is in the precincts for royal assent, and perhaps members could remain in their seats. His Honour will be approaching the chamber shortly.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
CLERK-ASSISTANT:
Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 1987
Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987
Expropriation Act
Engineers Amendment Act, 1987
Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1987
Legal Profession Act
Adoption Amendment Act, 1987
Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987
Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1987
School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987
Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act
Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987
Victoria Foundation Act
Columbia Bible College Act
An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation
Vancouver Museum Foundation Act
University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979 Amendment Act, 1987
CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
CLERK-ASSISTANT:
Supply Act (No. 2), 1987
CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before moving adjournment, I will advise the Legislative Assembly that we will sit as usual pursuant to our standing orders on Monday, but will have an evening session for consideration of further estimates and other business. We will sit Thursday pursuant to standing orders, but will probably try to be out of here by 5:30, at least, on Tuesday afternoon. Following adjournment Tuesday afternoon, the House will stand adjourned until the following Monday.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:34 p.m.