[ Page 8801 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. fishing industry. Mr. G. Hanson –– 8801

BCIT operations. Mr. Jones –– 8802

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 8803

Presenting Petitions –– 8803

Tabling Documents –– 8804

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 8805

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Barnes

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 90).

Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8817

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Perry

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Harcourt

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 92).

Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8834

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Supply Act (No. 3), 1989 (Bill 88). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8840

Second reading –– 8840

Committee stage –– 8840

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 8841

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. J. JANSEN: Visiting the precincts today are some distinguished guests: His Excellency Edward Ney, Ambassador of the United States of America to Canada, and Mrs. Judith Ney. They are accompanied by Mr. Sam Fromowitz, consul-general, and Mrs. Joan Fromowitz. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I notice in the members' gallery today, Mr. Speaker, a very good friend of the parliamentary tradition and indeed the practice of parliament in British Columbia, a man who probably spends more time up above in this chamber than anybody else and who's probably an authority on the subject. I know this gentleman will welcome a vacation from this assembly as much as anybody. We only hope that he doesn't suffer the same withdrawal symptoms that a number of others of us will feel when we depart. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming a resident from Victoria, Mr. Bill Kirkness.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), I would like to introduce two children of his constituents who are visiting the Legislature today: Karen Jackson from New Westminster; and visiting her parents from Finland, Elizabeth Rikkinen. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine and a prominent member of the law community in my constituency, accompanied by his wife and two daughters. I would like the House to please welcome Mr. Glenn Einfeld, his wife Lillian, and their two daughters, Laura and Nicki.

MR. MILLER: I would like the House to welcome four people from Prince Rupert. It's a rare opportunity for me to make these kinds of introductions. John Kuz and Foster Husoy are both Prince Rupert aldermen who work in the fishing industry, and Diane Hewitt and Fran Brown work in the fish-processing industry in Prince Rupert, which is so important to British Columbia. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This morning a group of British Columbians met with the Cabinet Committee on Regional Development, including Mr. Jack Nichol from the UFAWU, Mr. Cliff Atleo from the Native Brotherhood and some 30 people from the coastal communities who work in the fishing industry. They're here to encourage the government to keep up its good work on behalf of the fishing industry in this province and to continue to ensure that the industry is maintained at its high level and grows to provide jobs for British Columbians. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today some special guests who have come from New Delhi, India. They are Mr. Kiran Kapoor, Mrs. Veena Kapoor, Mr. Ranjeet Kapoor and Mrs. Bubalee Kapoor. They are guests of Mr. Raj Khanna, Mrs. Shashi Khanna, their son Puneet Khanna and their daughter Anu Khanna. They are in the members' gallery. I'd ask the House to make them especially welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. It's clear that Tom Siddon and your government's Tory friends are selling out the B.C. fishing industry. Can the Premier give his guarantee that not one herring or salmon caught in our territorial waters will be trucked or barged to offshore plants for processing in the United States or Asia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Ottawa about six months ago, I had meetings with members of the New Democratic Party. I had meetings with members of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. I had a meeting with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and members of the Tory party. Yes, we have friends in all of the parties in Ottawa, and we would prefer to be friends and on good terms with all members in Ottawa. I take exception to the fact that the NDP should take the position that their only friends in Ottawa somehow naturally must be only those affiliated with the socialist NDP. I think we need to work with all of the people in Ottawa, regardless of what party they belong to. I think we must insist, regardless of what party is in power in Ottawa, and perhaps that is what makes Social Credit so strong in this province.

I don't think we should take the opportunity to bash one; I think we need to work for all British Columbians, regardless of what their political affiliation. We owe it to them. We owe it to those in the fishing industry...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...to listen to them, to meet with them as we've done over the past many months, and to do more than a little bit of grandstanding at the last day that the House sits.

While the NDP, during the whole of this sitting over the last four months, has made little mention of the fishing industry....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Rubbish!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, that's not rubbish; that's the truth. I will go through Hansard with you and I will show you.

[ Page 8802 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You are talking about our friends in the industry, you are talking about the natives and you are talking about the people of Prince Rupert because they are in the House today. I say we must work for those people and for that industry every day of the year.

[2:15]

I will guarantee that I will work every day –– 24 hours a day if need be, and expect the same from every member on this side — to make sure that we do the right thing for the people in this province and the right thing for the people in the industry.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, that sounded like a cheap beer promise to me — pretty fishy.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. The jobs of thousands of shore workers up and down this coast are at stake, and vague assurances are not good enough. I ask again: will the Premier commit that all of the herring and all of the salmon of this beautiful province will be processed in B.C. plants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I'll attempt to answer it this way. First of all, let me say again — further to what I said a moment ago — that we will not resolve the problems that face people in this province and people in that industry through political confrontation. If the NDP think they can whip up political confrontation and thereby win the day for those people in all of those coastal communities dependent on that industry being strong and surviving for years to come, they are wrong. But it's easy to stand there and make all sorts of allegations and ridiculous suggestions without having all of the facts or by ignoring the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's generally known — it's certainly known by people in the industry, and it should be known by the critic from the opposition — that even today, as we saw six months ago or one, two, three or five years ago, a certain amount of product was being processed elsewhere. We know that a certain product was coming in from Alaska and being processed in Prince Rupert, and we know that a certain product was leaving from my constituency to be processed in the U.S. That has happened. That happened months ago and years ago.

So for the member to get up and say, "Will you guarantee to change the world, Mr. Premier, even though it hasn't been thus all of the time? But somehow we the socialists believe that we could have the perfect world," let me say this. I will repeat again: one of the reasons people in that industry can depend on a fair deal and can depend on us being fair and dealing honestly with the matter is that we'll not be dishonest with them as the questioner was in seeking a guarantee which he knows has never been able to be undertaken in this province or elsewhere.

BCIT OPERATIONS

MR. JONES: I would like to return to the matter of government interference in the operations of BCIT.

Prior to his leaving, the former president of BCIT, Mr. Roy Murray, wrote a 12-page letter to the board of governors that was a serious indictment of this government, and it summarized his concerns in the following quote: "It's absolutely essential that the ministry withdraw from its constant interference with operations and its criticism of operating expenses." Mr. Murray confirmed the contents of that letter last week. The minister has consistently in this House denied all the concerns raised by Mr. Murray in his letter. The question to the minister is then: is it his contention that Mr. Murray has fabricated the incidents of interference cited in this letter?

HON. S. HAGEN: Let me reiterate what I said yesterday when I was asked this question. The government has only one plan for BCIT, and that is that it become the very best institute of advanced technology in this country. I think it's important for the member opposite to recognize this.

The member opposite comes up with these letters, which, I might add, are personal letters written by the then president of BCIT to the chairman of the board of governors. As I said the other day, the then president, Mr. Murray, took the time to phone me from Ontario last Wednesday, very concerned about this letter being obtained by the NDP, to say categorically that he has no difficulty with this minister or with the government. He is very pleased with the direction BCIT is taking.

Obviously the government is supportive of BCIT or we would not have increased the funding substantially this year by many millions of dollars in capital and operating. I had a meeting last week with the new president and new chairman of the board of BCIT who also see the vision this government has for BCIT, which obviously the opposition doesn't have. They see the vision that the institute can become the best in the country, so that the students can be proud of graduating from the best institute.

Let me further say that the B.C. Institute of Technology has a first-class reputation with the employers of this province and that over 90 percent of the students are placed in jobs as soon as they graduate. Let me also say that the government has more plans for BCIT in the way of capital expenditures, equipment expenditures, new program expenditures, programs in business and programs where people become leaders in business and in the high-tech industry.

I don't understand why the members opposite want to dwell on a letter written by a president over a year ago which the former president has long since forgotten about. He is in a new career in another province. He is very pleased with what is going on at BCIT. I think that the letter, which is a year old, is newer than most of the statistics the opposition draws on. Most of the statistics are three, four or five years old.

[ Page 8803 ]

I would encourage the member to stop rapping BCIT, to become supportive of BCIT and to become supportive of the faculty and the students at BCIT.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister confirm that halfway through the government's internal investigation of the Knight Street Pub affair his ministry received a letter from a resident of Vancouver — namely, Don Lee — alleging criminal interference?

Will he confirm that at that time the advice of his lawyers on his internal committee was to drop the internal investigation and refer it to the police, and that that advice was overruled by Mr. Poole in the Premier's office after discussion with the minister, perhaps, and certainly with the deputy minister, Mr. Lee Doney?

HON. L. HANSON: It's obvious that the self-appointed Clarence Darrow of the socialists is back in his fantasy land. I am most pleased to confirm that the Knight Street Pub is closed and to confirm that the issue is closed.

MR. SIHOTA: On May 25 during estimates, I asked the minister a question about whether or not Ms. McRobbie was fronting for Mr. Toigo in the Knight Street Pub affair. The minister said that his ministry investigated that matter, and there was no evidence. I have here with me a debenture between Shato Holdings and Ms. McRobbie's company. Will the minister confirm that his ministry was aware of this and the corporate relationship between Mr. Toigo's company and Ms. McRobbie right at the beginning of their investigation into this matter?

If the minister is not going answer that question, I have a question for the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). Law enforcement authorities commenced an investigation into a purported meeting between Mr. Giordano, Ms. McRobbie and Mr. Toigo at the Town and Country Inn in Delta concerning the referendum. What steps were taken by his ministry to prematurely terminate that investigation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The question presupposes an assumption that I quite frankly wouldn't presume to comment on. I would hope that the member has something more substantial to back up his presupposition than he has had previously, because of the kind of innuendo and inferences that he regularly trots out in this House, then subsequently discovers that he is wrong — as he did with the Wilkinson Road jail matter.

You'll recall some months ago when, with the Wilkinson Road jail issue, he stood in this House and made accusations. He got his cheap headline, and he had his very accommodating little television cameras over from BCTV, and he got all that good stuff done. But it turned out he was wrong. Rather than do the decent, honourable and just thing, he snuck into the House yesterday to do his mea culpa, not looking the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) in the eye, but rather doing it with the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). Even at that, as he made his apology for that issue about which he was wrong and about which he tarred people's reputations innocently, even at that point he could not bring himself to say: 'I'm sorry, I was wrong." He blamed it on the staff at Wilkinson Road.

All of that said, Mr. Speaker, I will take the specifics of his question as notice, pending the receipt by me of his specific written evidence to support his question.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled an answer to a question from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

Presenting Petitions

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to have leave to present a petition,

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 1,500 members of the Indo-Canadian community, most of whom reside in Richmond, in reaction to the Premier's comments in this House regarding the Komagata Maru, just to point out that residents in his riding and their relatives throughout the lower mainland wish to have the government establish a permanent commemorative in respect of the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of privilege.

I gather this petition was collected on the basis of information that had been selectively provided to constituents in Richmond from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I get up on a point of privilege because I think it's a sad day in this House when members will selectively take from what's said in this House to distribute to members of a particular community, a respected community, in order to incite some reaction to fair debate in this House so that it might be used politically. I certainly regret the action, though I will be pleased to review the petition and to communicate directly and honestly to the members and to those who are a part of the petition.

MR. SIHOTA: On that point of privilege, the Premier has jumped to a whole series of assumptions and falsehoods.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell the truth.

MR. SIHOTA: I am.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Government House Leader.

[ Page 8804 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Sleazy Moe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The government House Leader rises on a point of order.

MR. SIHOTA: What about the point of privilege?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew presented his petition, made his remarks, and I feel he has had his say in this House. The Premier has had a chance to rebut his remarks, and it should end there.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is a point of privilege, and a member has a right to speak on a point of privilege. His petition wasn't the point of privilege.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask the Premier to withdraw references he made recently across the way here to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said "sleazy Moe"; I don't know if that's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: I put forth the contention, Mr. Speaker, that anything, such as "sleazy Moe" or "tell the truth for once in your life," that is found to be unacceptable by the member.... These are things that I think the Premier is far above; he doesn't need to resort to that. He can examine the petition. If the petition is found wanting in any way, it will be rejected by the Table.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, there's a limit to how much one can take. Frankly, after listening day after day to some of the sleazy stuff that has been thrown across the floor, I do get rather frustrated by it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll use a word that I know is not unparliamentary. I'll remove "sleazy Moe" and say "media Moe."

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know it's picky, and I know it's the last day and we're all supposed to end up on nice, friendly terms and all that. But the fact that he used "Moe" is the use of the first name. I'm quite sure you wouldn't want to be called "Bill" or "three-dollar Bill" or "phony Bill" or anything like that.

In the interests of the Christmas spirit, because we have almost arrived there by now, I wonder if all of us could sort of abandon our suffering from withdrawal symptoms once the Premier has squared it away with my hon. friend from Port Renfrew.

MR. ROGERS: On a point of procedure, it seems to me that when the Premier stands on a matter of privilege and brings the matter of privilege to the Chair, it is then up to the Chair to determine whether in fact there is a matter of privilege, and only at that time can debate continue. It would seem to me the Premier has stated his matter of privilege and until the Chair has ruled whether or not there is a matter of privilege there can be no further debate.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member knows, it has been a tradition in this House, when a matter of privilege is raised, to allow other members to contribute to that point of privilege before a decision is made by the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly agree with the opposition House Leader that we've had generally good relations in the House, and it's always been my wish that they be such. We often sit here and take a lot of stuff that we take exception to for good reason, and perhaps more so from some members than others, but I appreciate as well what you said. I can't use first names; I can't use Moe nor Curly nor Larry; it's not parliamentary or proper.

I withdraw in the hope that we may leave as friends.

Hon. Mr. Dueck tabled the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation annual report, 1988-89; the vital statistics annual report, 1988; and the Ministry of Health annual report, 1987-88.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like members of the Legislature to greet two gentlemen who fought in the Second World War to preserve our democracy. They have the privilege of watching our democracy in action today. I will comment no further. I would like members of the Legislature to greet one of your constituents, Mr. Speaker, who is a longtime coroner in West Vancouver and a member of the bar, Mr. Bernard Nash. We bring greetings to Mr. Bernard Nash, who is seated in the members' gallery. A constituent of the Premier and his seatmate from Richmond who also fought in the North Atlantic is here with his good friend Mr. Nash: my father, Mr. Frank Harcourt.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

[ Page 8805 ]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 64: minister's office, $301,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was wondering, after the time that passed, if perhaps the minister would like to make some comments on family and child services, given some of the debate yesterday, and the fact that he's had an opportunity to talk to his staff. Does he have any news for us today?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps the member could be more specific on what she would like to hear. Offhand, I don't remember where the debate left off yesterday. One thing I will share with the member, because we did some investigation into the case involving two boys — one a foster child.... I'm just trying to find it as we go here. I quote first of all from the Blues yesterday where the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley said: "Just to provide the minister with some additional information, the boys' damage of something like $70,000 — a $70,000 judgment. I had the staff do some checking into the case, and I can assure the member and this House that while the court did find the boys liable, there was no amount put on a judgment. We have searched the court records, the Attorney-General's (Hon. S.D. Smith's) records and our own records, and the court registry confirms that there was no assessment in our absence against the boys. There is no amount put on the judgment. I just wanted to clear that up for the record. While they have been found guilty and the case is under appeal, there has been no amount. I won't comment further as to the question of who will pay the damages if any are assessed, because no amount has been assessed.

Just to come back to the member's opening remarks, could you be more specific? I don't know what you're after from yesterday.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was specifically talking about the cases of teens who were in Corrections mainly because there were no foster homes available to them. I was hoping you'd have more news on the foster care situation, but if you haven't got any further information, we'll proceed and I'll talk to you after the estimates are over to see how those circumstances develop.

In my introduction I talked about the fact that the social service system, as far as I can understand, is spending far too much money on crisis management and not enough on prevention. I think that most professionals in the field will acknowledge that prevention is not only more cost-effective but that it does prevent crises and is a far better way of going about social wellness. I want to come back to the emphasis on social well-being. I think it would be well for the ministry to consider that as a concept and a challenge for the future. Very clearly society generally, because of the kinds of policies that have been brought about by this ministry, is paying dearly, and I'll talk a bit about some of the numbers.

Again, I want to refresh the minister on some of the realities faced in British Columbia because of previous government policies. As for family and children's services, since 1983 child care workers in schools have lost their funding, regional coordinators for family and children's services were fired, special teams and coordinators of programs for children with handicaps were eliminated and home-care services for new mothers were reduced — and that's only a partial list. You yourself know that family support workers were cut back and sexual abuse teams were virtually eliminated, with a loss of jobs and skills in this province.

As I said yesterday, in his introduction the minister began to recognize the cost of those cutbacks, both in human terms as well as in financial terms, to this government and has begun to bring back some of those programs under different names.

In the last year or so, the minister has been approached by several groups, including levels of government, asking for programs to feed hungry kids. When food banks were first organized in this province, they looked for funding and for opportunities to talk to the ministry about ongoing problems. Now what we're seeing is that food banks that have initiative, that are creative in their fund-raising and that manage to organize volunteers and support for those food banks as their number one priority are just hanging on by their fingertips. The question, of course, is what people are going to do when those food banks do close.

[2:45]

The member for Langley intervened on a couple of occasions yesterday. I wonder whether she has approached the minister as to the support he would suggest for the people in Langley who can't make ends meet. That food bank closed because Family Services were no longer able to keep it running. I wonder if the minister has some advice for the member for Langley.

On the issue of prevention, I'd like to talk to the minister about a few numbers. I have a chart here that indicates government expenditures on preventive programs, and while it is very difficult to compare one jurisdiction to another, because the categories are different, let me give you some numbers that I think are pretty good ballpark figures.

Total expenditure in Ontario, for instance, for child welfare is something like $207 per child. The difference in Ontario has been that they have far fewer children in care, and we are talking about the difference in costs of prevention and where they put their money and the difference in how much it costs this province to keep children in care. In Ontario the cost, as I said, was $207. They have approximately 0.45 percent of their child population in care. In British Columbia, by comparison, we have something like 1 percent of our children in care. In British Columbia the costs show something like $265, if I am

[ Page 8806 ]

correct, and that is comparing the same kinds of programs and the same kinds of costs.

I would argue that the reason the cost per child in Ontario is significantly less than it is here is that we pay so much more for statutory services. We have that many more children in our population that are subject to statutory services. Let me talk in particular about one aspect of statutory services. This goes back to some of the earlier discussion the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) raised earlier about the costs of poverty, the costs of keeping people poor. I want to talk about the cost of keeping children in institutions, particularly Corrections.

I will give you some more numbers. Professionals can identify problem conditions in about 20 percent of families, and about 5 percent to 6 percent show a need for professional help. Statutory intervention rarely affects more than 1 percent of children in any one year. In the U.K., for example, there are 37,000 children in care; that represents 0.3 percent of all children in the U.K., yet this figure is still considered too high.

In 1986-87 in British Columbia there were 5,769 children in care by apprehension, 2,385 children in youth containment and 3,733 children on probation. In addition, approximately 100 children were contained in Maples. This represented at that time 1.5 percent of British Columbia's children. I would argue that not only are we seeing now these significant costs to the budget.... And we talked about where money is spent in your ministry. Not only are we seeing this expensive care being provided, but we are seeing the disruption of families. We are seeing youth in British Columbia who have gone much further than support services.

I would suggest that we are seeing these large numbers and these big expenses because of this ministry's shortsightedness back in '83 and '85, during the restraint years, with the cutback in support and preventive services. I would argue that it should be a goal of your ministry to provide the kind of support to families that means that kids don't end up in institutions. A goal for the ministry should be to reduce the number of children in care, to provide programs that support families directly, to reduce the number of children that are taken from their families, the kind of support that is necessary in the early years. I recognize that the Sullivan commission — and I have a motion on the order paper — recommended that the ministry interface with the education system; that they provide front-line services at schools to help identify problems in their early stages and support kids through those difficult times. Those kinds of services will not only reduce the number of kids in care and in corrections but will reduce the demand on your budget as well.

The minister wanted practical suggestions. That would be my goal, Mr. Minister. If you looked at the kind of care that is provided by your ministry; if you would take our recommendations and do things like taking another look at the child welfare legislation, the family services act; if you looked at the recommendations brought forward by the royal commission headed by Thomas Berger as one example, then you could significantly impact the budget of your ministry. In addition, you could significantly impact the kind of pain and suffering that has been experienced because of the years of Social Credit government and their impact on families. I think the statistics will bear out my argument.

I'd like to talk to you about the need to coordinate programs. Earlier in the session we took a look at an example of severely handicapped children and the things that their families had to face, either trying to support their children at home or trying to keep their family together while the child was in an institution.

I argued at that time — and I'm afraid the minister wasn't too receptive; I hope that the minister will take another look at it — that what was needed was a far more coordinated overall approach to family and child services in this province. Currently services to children are handled by three or four different ministries: the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Education, Health and Social Services. It becomes incredibly difficult for any family to work through that huge bureaucracy. I have argued that there is a need to recognize a child advocate; a need for someone to help families and in particular children get the programs that they need and that they have their rights recognized.

I believe that by looking at the numbers and comparing other jurisdictions, our record in this province is not a good one in respect to the care of children. It is certainly borne out by the statistics that show the number of children in care by population. I think it's also borne out when you look at the percentage of budget, because for the most part GAIN has been fairly static as a percentage of your budget. But the growth that we have seen is the growth in costs to deliver services to children in care — children in institutions. As I pointed out, those different categories....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley continue her questioning on Social Services.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for intervening.

As I pointed out, the costs are borne through several different ministries. I had hoped the minister could comment. I think the minister would share the concern that those costs for children in care are substantial, and I would hope that he would embrace the wellness concept, as has the Ministry of Health, in providing supportive and preventive services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I guess I have to make a few comments so that we don't get this one-sided view that's not quite correct left on the record.

We're very cognizant of the costs of keeping children in care and apprehending children and the

[ Page 8807 ]

needs and how to proceed cautiously. We're very aware of the need to work together with other ministries, and I outlined yesterday that the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy does it very well. In fact, I don't think there's ever been a time in the history of this government when the social service ministries worked together any better than they do now. It's very coordinated, and we do talk to each other.

In the field of child abuse, I don't think there's any other jurisdiction in this country that is as advanced as we are with the child abuse handbook. It sets out the expectations and the coordination of services that are required between ministries. It sets out all the protocols between ministries, the police, Crown counsel, our ministry, Health, Education, etc. We do have an interministry children's committee which has existed for a long time. So I wanted to put that on the record, lest anyone think that we are not on top of this and at the leading edge of what is going on in the field of child abuse, child apprehension, etc.

To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, last year — and this is an astonishing statistic — our ministry responded to 26,000 complaints of child abuse or neglect. We had to investigate all 26,000. It resulted in 3,000 apprehensions. So I also want that on the record so that people don't think that we just "swoop down and apprehend children." We investigate very thoroughly. I think that's a significant number. It's a shocking number in that there are 26,000 complaints; it shocks me terribly. We're not alone in this. We're not the only jurisdiction that has this, but most people aren't aware that there are 26,000 complaints a year of either neglect or abuse of children. I do want it noted that it resulted in 3,000 apprehensions.

There are lots of families who do continue to care for their children, and they do get the type of counselling you're taking about. So they don't all end in apprehensions. We send in counsellors; we work with the families. Our number one objective is to keep families together wherever possible and whatever that family may be. We're very cognizant, too, on this side of the House that the traditional — I think they call it nuclear — family that we used to accept as normal is not really the norm anymore. The traditional family, where the husband works and the mother stays at home and raises the children, depending on the area of the country you're in, is between 12 percent and 16 percent of families. So the family as we knew it is a very small percentage of total families.

[3:00]

So whatever a family happens to be, whether it's a single parent with children or whether it's an extended family, we do our very best wherever possible and wherever practical to keep families together. I think our goals are much the same as the member has outlined, but they've been that for a long time, long before these estimates started and before this member here or that member came on the scene. The goals have been there.

Rather than talk about 1983 or 1536 or whatever year it was you were talking about yesterday, let's talk about this current year of '88-89. I'm happy to say that since 1986 the number of children in B.C. has been increasing, a phenomenon known as the shadow baby boom. So the number of children overall in B.C. since '86 has been increasing. Our mathematical predictive model suggests that on the basis of the changes in population, the declining trend in the number of children in care would turn around in '86. The number of children in care has been declining, but the predictive model suggested that it might turn around and slowly increase as the number of children in the province increased.

The need for child-protection activity is on the increase. In fact, the exact numbers are here. In '88-89 members of the public drew 27, 059 cases of possible abuse or neglect to our attention, up 780 from the previous year. Our investigations revealed that 14,110 of these cases required further preventive and protective service directly from the ministry staff. A further 3,065 cases were referred to other agencies and organizations for service.

We have not yet been able to determine exactly what proportion of these agencies are funded by the ministry. I think it's a significant number — and this is the first time that I have spoken of this number — and I think it's significant news. A lower-than-expected level of admissions in these recent years has resulted in a caseload that is 1,200 less than the population-based predictions. Over the years we have been able to track very carefully the number of children who would be apprehended in comparison with the number of children in the province. As the number of children went up, the number of apprehensions followed and vice versa: when the number of children went down, the number of apprehensions did.

This is the first year in the history of the province — you can go back to the seventies, the early eighties, the fifties or whenever you like — that the number of children has gone up and the number of apprehensions has gone down. That can be attributed to only one thing, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member and to the rest of the people in British Columbia. This is a significant number, and you can attribute it to the community-based family support programs that we have put in place. Our careful researchers can only attribute it to that one thing: the support programs that we have put in place through community-based organizations. So I leave that on the record.

I would sincerely hope that the media would pick up a number like that, because it's very significant when you have apprehended 1,200 fewer children than you predicted you would apprehend. Before, it has been very predictable.

The member used Ontario as a model that we should follow. I've had many discussions with the minister, Mr. Sweeney, from Ontario. She quoted a lot of statistics from Ontario. The minister there is a very competent minister, Mr. John Sweeney. I have had numerous conversations with him and they have the same problems we have. We don't all function exactly by the same guidelines or parameters when it comes to ages.

[ Page 8808 ]

For example, it's not accurate to compare the number of children Ontario has in care to British Columbia, because they take children only up to the age of 16, where British Columbia looks after children up to the age of 19. Many, if not the majority, of our children in care are teenagers, so the numbers would not be accurate if you compare Ontario with British Columbia.

I think I've answered most of the questions, but just let me wrap up by saying that we appreciate the value of prevention. It's a corny old cliché, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we all know that it's a lot cheaper, more cost-effective, and better socially if we can prevent these problems than have to deal with them in a crisis mode.

I think the statistic I have just given over the number of apprehensions going down while the population is increasing is a good one, and I think the programs are working and we're headed in the right direction,

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to clarify a couple of things for the minister. The comparison in numbers between Ontario and British Columbia was around the costs for services — comparing the number of dollars per child for care from Ontario to British Columbia.

The percentage of population was between the U.K. and British Columbia, and those ages are, as far as I understand, comparable, and that's why those two jurisdictions were compared. In the U.K. they saw 0.3 percent of their child population in care and considered that too much. The comparative dates for '87 showed 1.5 percent of British Columbia's children in care. I am pleased to see that the numbers by population are going down in British Columbia.

I would tend to agree with the minister that the support services that are provided by community groups have to receive a great deal of credit for that.

I am very concerned about the minister's reorganization. I am very concerned about the staff levels and the ability of staff to deal with those huge numbers of complaints that the minister outlined. If the ministry is truly investigating each and every single complaint they get, how on earth can you be involved in anything else?

I think it's appropriate for the minister to give credit to community groups. I believe, however, that the ministry has some responsibility in this area. It's taxpayers' dollars that pick up the costs, and the ministry has a responsibility to ensure that the programs are there, that they are coordinated and accountable, that they are quality programs and that those programs are accessible throughout the province.

If the minister will recall, that was my earlier request: for information to ensure that those programs are accessible around the province. We have evidence that they are not, that there are communities that do not have the supports that are necessary.

I asked the minister to consider the need for bringing all family and child services under one jurisdiction. There is need for better coordination.

The minister replied by saying that we have tremendous coordination in our ministry. You have something like seven deputy ministers now heading up different areas of responsibility within your ministry....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay, assistant deputy ministers, but they are people responsible for different areas. My experience, when trying to work with the people of my constituency and people of the province that bring particular problems around social services to my attention, is that the only kind of coordination that is involved in your ministry is case-specific.

If a person pushes hard enough, gets the attention of the senior bureaucracy, they can have their case brought up to that level. For instance, we will talk a little bit later about Ryan Bonson's case. It was a matter of pushing until you could get it bumped up to the senior levels of bureaucracy so that you could get somebody to pay attention and help coordinate the different ministries.

The point that I will try to bring home to the minister is that it cannot be dealt with in that highly centralized.... In Victoria at that high level there must be some way of dealing with the system so that it is more approachable by families. By the time a family has to work through the system, whether they have a child that has a behavioural problem, whether they have a child with a handicap and need some kind of support, they become absolute experts.

The minister would do well to listen to some of those families, because they can teach all of us about the bureaucracy. I suspect that some of those families, some of the mothers of those children, could teach some of the people in the ministry how to work through the system. I think that it is incumbent upon the minister to begin to deal with that reality: the need for making it simpler, more responsive to parents.

I want to emphasize that no ministry has a greater responsibility than any other for the whole. As a result, I believe that the long list of major family crises and conditions is not attended to in this province. I believe that while good services are given, while you have highly skilled people in the ministry, because the ministry's focus is not in this particular area, some of those highly trained, specialized people can't provide the sort of resources that they themselves would like to provide. While there are excellent services at this particular level in British Columbia, the system as a whole has tremendous flaws and gaps. That means inadequate resources and, quite frankly, a lack of accountability. There is a real need to look at the areas around accessibility and coordination of services to families.

The minister talked about abuse and neglect, so I would like to take a look at that.

Interjections.

[ Page 8809 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I guess I'd also like to comment on some of the backbenchers' frustration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say something nice.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to say something nice, Mr. Member, but quite frankly, it would do you well to work on the front lines trying to deal with troubled kids. There's not too much that is nice out there. The minister's responsibility is a very difficult one. I recognize that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I like it better when you're mean.

MS. SMALLWOOD: All right, then I won't give you the compliment I was going to give you.

Let's talk about sexual abuse and neglect in the province and the need for a bit of attention there as well. The minister gave us some numbers on the increase in reported sexual abuse in the province. Those numbers are significant and of concern to many people. It makes it very difficult for the system to be able to function. It makes it very difficult to deliver services to help those people.

I have a concern about those investigations that the minister talks about. This comes back to the business of open government and accessible information. I'm not talking about the details or the confidentiality of those investigations. I'm talking about the need for access to the information to be assured that those investigations are being done: checks and balances that say such and such numbers were reported, so and so numbers were investigated, and giving the outcomes of those investigations. Without published data on the extent of the ministry's investigative activities, it's impossible to confirm the statistical reports that the minister has given us. The minister says there has been that number of complaints and they're all investigated, but it's very hard to give those kinds of comments any credence without the database to substantiate them.

[3:15]

I want to talk about the ombudsman's report. On page 70 the ombudsman describes the case of a mother who discovered that one of her daughter's softball coaches had been convicted of sexual assault When she pointed this out to the ministry, she was told that the onus was on her to produce evidence of criminal conviction. The ministry's officials indicated that they had no legal authority to become involved that intervention of a preventive nature was not seen as a part of the ministry's legal mandate, and that it was a community problem. This mother eventually got support from the ombudsman's office, and I believe her concern was dealt with.

I think the concern that was raised by the ombudsman's office around the responsibility of the ministry in this area is a considerable one. It goes back to my argument that prevention, this kind of direct-line support, would eliminate costs down the line. The minister gets up and spouts platitudes about being in favour of prevention. Here's an example. Can the minister tell us what he has done since the ombudsman's report to deal with prevention, and to deal with the kinds of support that this mother was looking for?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, again and just for the record, in our ministry we have one deputy, three ADMs and a superintendent of family and child services — just so you know.

I have to take exception on behalf of the staff when the member says that you don't get looked after in this ministry until you get right to the top, That's not true.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That's not what I said; don't twist my words.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't think I'm twisting it. You made an allegation that, "if you don't get to a senior bureaucrat" — and you pointed right at Sam when you said it — "you don't get anything done in this ministry." Well, that's not true. We're not centralized, Madam Member. This ministry is not centralized. In fact, we're probably the most regionalized ministry, except maybe for Forests, in the province. Our regional directors have global budgets for their region. They act autonomously, because we feel they know best what's good for their region, and they set their budgets themselves.

We're decentralized to the extent that we have 1,010 social workers in the field, and only 30 social workers in headquarters. So that is hardly a centralized ministry. The decisions are made out in the field. We have nine social workers in Woodlands, which is on its way to being closed. Twelve percent of our budget goes to operational costs.

I don't want to belabour points of cost per child, and the costs in this country or that province. But you must compare the ages of the children they have in care, because if they have children in care only up to 16, and we have children in care up to 19 — where the great majority of them are, and they're more expensive to look after — then naturally the cost per child is going to be up considerably. But I don't want to belabour that. I think we are doing an excellent job of looking after children in this province.

I don't want to harp on the statistics, but the apprehensions are going down. More families are being kept together. More counselling is being done than ever before. The reorganization in the ministry is working well, because it has split the two primary divisions of the ministry — the financial assistance and the social work — so people now get more specialized service.

When I quote the number of 27,000 and some complaints of sexual abuse and neglect, I should add that of all the cases, about 20 percent are of alleged sexual abuse, and the rest is mainly neglect. And we get reports of it, and we do investigate every incident of child abuse or child neglect.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure we'll have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to take a look at some more

[ Page 8810 ]

examples of what happens in that whole area of investigation. But I wanted to zero in on the ombudsman's report. I'll come back to the wellness, the prevention and the need for a change in the ministry's mandate — if that is what's necessary — as it's outlined in the ombudsman's report. I would emphasize that the ministry officials indicated that they had no legal authority to become involved, I'd ask the minister to indicate what exactly the ministry is doing — if indeed you are interested in prevention and support In the area of child abuse — to assist communities in becoming involved in support for families that are victims of child abuse. What are you doing to help in different communities to prevent this very serious problem?

I want to keep on this theme of prevention and wellness and the whole issue of cost. I believe that because of the actions of the Social Credit government over the years, you're paying a much higher cost in crisis management — that's taxpayers' dollars.

The rough consensus is that one in three women and slightly fewer men experience sexual abuse as a child. Every therapist dealing with sexual abuse in British Columbia is booked with a waiting-list of six to 18 months; these are the specialists. Many offenders were early victims of child incest themselves. Frequently an incest offender can develop from a male's striving for emotional self-sufficiency. Men turn to children because they are weak and easily dominated. Ninety percent of sexual abusers are men; 80 percent of male abusers were themselves abused as children; 70 percent of prostitutes were abused; 70 percent of women drug addicts were abused. It's estimated that 75 percent to 80 percent of people in mental health treatment centres have experienced sexual abuse. Elizabeth Fry Society states that between 80 and 95 percent of women in federal prisons have been abused as children. Another startling statistic is that applications to the Criminal Injury Compensation Board because of child sexual abuse offences shot up from 18 in 1983 to more than 800 in 1988. The question remains: what is this ministry doing? Have you rethought your position since the ombudsman's report?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Maybe the member wasn't listening earlier when I talked about the community groups we are funding to do just what she is saying, which has resulted in 1,200 fewer children in care than we had predicted. I will repeat all of that if you wish.

To me, that is prevention, Madam Member, and that's what you are talking about. It's keeping families together. That's where the prevention of child abuse starts — in keeping families strong.

I will give you just a few examples. In 1988 the government initiated a broad range of programs aimed at strengthening the family, and that has worked. Twenty million dollars was allocated. I will give you a few examples. In Victoria we have Community Options for Children and Families and respite care for handicapped children, to provide families with some relief. In Vancouver there are ten family advancement workers to work in urban schools and help families fulfil their responsibilities. Kelowna; Surrey; Vancouver.... Perhaps the member hasn't been following what we've been doing with our program called Reconnect to get street kids off the street, back into their communities and back with their families. The Reconnect program has been very successful. Mental Health has programs in the communities to help in this regard.

To stand and quote the statistics about child abuse that we all know.... We all read the same articles in the same papers. We know about child abuse and the statistics regarding abusers and how many women out of three have been abused and how many men and the percentage of prostitutes who have been abused. We are all very cognizant of those facts.

The point is that the family support programs we have initiated through community groups are working, keeping families together, keeping families strong, providing counselling and resulting in fewer children being apprehended. I am convinced that in the long run the way we will prevent sexual abuse of anyone in our society is by keeping families strong.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, you have a tendency to dodge questions. I will only make one more comment in this area because I don't expect to get the kind of information that I need.

The Vancouver Incest and Sexual Abuse Centre daily turns away large numbers of adult survivors who request individual counselling, because most cannot afford the fees charged by the private practitioners to whom the organization refers. That's only one example. We've heard repeatedly from Prince George and from the Island of organizations that are looking for funding and support for their programs. We hear about the eight- to 16-month waiting-list for the professionals in the field needed to provide the services to those people that you yourself have identified.

I will move to a slightly different area, which is still under the umbrella of family and children's services. I want to ask you specifically about support for families with handicapped children. The minister announced with great fanfare a program that would provide support for families. I don't want to be misunderstood in any way: I think that program is good. It has taken a long time, and the ministry needs to be congratulated for understanding the need for that program. I'd like to think that Ryan Bonson and Heather Van Egdom were part of bringing that need to the minister's attention in a forceful manner. I hope the member for Vancouver South paid attention, because that may be the one and only compliment you get in this particular area.

The people who did the most work were the people who formed the Family Support Institute. That organization, sponsored by British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People, deserves a great deal of support. This goes back to the comments I was making earlier about the expert skills that parents develop in dealing with children that are in need.

[ Page 8811 ]

The concern I had in the minister's press conference — and I wanted to say this to you — is that that organization had organized a lobby, a day where they brought families and children down to talk to the government. That day of lobbying was organized by the Family Support Institute. The families were supported; corporations like Air Canada paid for the transportation of the children so that they could come down and tell the minister firsthand what the problems were that they faced in dealing with the government — because there are several ministries they have to deal with — to tell the minister firsthand about their experiences in hope that the minister would hear and that any program the minister was developing would reflect their concerns, their needs and their frustrations.

[1330]

Instead, the government came in with its pre-made backdrop, did a presentation, a little bit of a media hit, got some nice pictures with the kids and left. There were some parents sitting there saying: "But I thought we were coming to talk to them. I thought we were coming to tell the government about our needs."

I want to just highlight some of the focus the Family Support Institute has brought to this concern, because I need to be assured the minister has heard this.

The question is: what is good family support for those who have sons or daughters that live with a handicap?

One, family support can only be offered; it cannot be imposed. I think the ministry is very sensitive to that.

Two, family support is for everyone; you can't pick and choose. There has to be a universally accessible program.

Three, family support in part is an information-sharing process. This goes back to the need for your ministry to look at how accessible it is to these families. How accessible is government for families that have not had to work through the system, who don't have the skills, who don't know where to go? I would argue it is not accessible.

Four, family support puts families in touch with each other. Family support is realistic and honest. Family support assists parents to recognize the importance of their involvement in the lives of their sons or daughters. Family support recognizes that the family is often the most important and sometimes the only consistent factor in the life of an individual.

The most important thing in developing programs for children, as far as this particular organization goes — and I think they provide quite a model for other organizations and other families that are in need — is that the government must respect the talents and skills of parents. They must recognize that parents know best, and they must be responsive to that and that no professional in the field necessarily, by the fact they are professionals, knows better than the parents that have been looking after those children.

That comes back to your program. The program, while it relieves a great deal of stress on families — it certainly is supportive in different categories — falls short in that we have not heard how families will be consulted in a coordinated, organized way, and I'd like the minister to tell us that. I've got to respond to several different constituents. Are you prepared to set up an advisory council of families with children to help develop and monitor the program's progress?

Secondly, the areas that are not covered by the program, areas of renovations and making homes accessible to children with handicaps. As far as I understand it, the program explicitly leaves that particular need aside, and I'd suggest that the minister, through his responsibility for housing, could very well deal with some support for families in that area. The minister talked to us at that time and said that this is where the community comes in, that families with children with handicaps must go to the community, must get communities to help build the ramps, make the bathrooms more accessible, add on that extra room if an attendant is needed. I suggest that that's unrealistic. First, the minister doesn't recognize that service groups do not provide for that kind of service. Secondly, very often families are fully extended just looking after the kids. They cannot engage in the kinds of campaigns that are necessary to bring their problem to the attention of service groups in the community. Thirdly — and I'll get back to the specifics of individual cases in a second — the other area of this program that isn't dealt with is transportation.

The minister says no extraordinary transportation will be provided for families. There are a very small number of families in this province where the children are completely dependent on life-sustaining technologies. The example I would bring to the minister's attention is ventilator-dependent kids. Those families need the security of their own transportation. The transportation provided by groups is provided only for groups of children. It is not secure transportation for ventilator-dependent children or other children who are dependent on machinery. I have talked to the minister about this before. There is a need to recognize that difference, as ICBC has done, for instance. There is a need for some help for those families specifically. Perhaps the minister can provide some further information and, I hope, some comfort to those families.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It seems that we have to listen to 15 minutes of motherhood on every subject, explaining things we've all known for years. The member seems to want to get on the record all the things that everyone in the field knows, especially the professionals in the ministry who deliver the services. We can drag these estimates out until midnight if we listen to 15 minutes every time we introduce a new topic. I get a little tired of it.

For this person across the way to say that we are not supporting these kind of people is totally erroneous. We are leading the way in North America in our programs for handicapped people. We don't say that

[ Page 8812 ]

lightly, and we don't say it ourselves. We get told that by other people. In other countries I've visited in Europe and other places in the world, we're ahead of most of what they are doing as well.

The member brought up the program that we announced in Robson Square and how the people came down and visited with me. Yes, they did. They came at my invitation. But you say the minister didn't answer this and didn't answer that, I stayed for about an hour after the press conference — maybe 45 minutes — and I answered as many questions as I could before I had to leave. But way beyond that, I've met with these associations for the last three years. I've met with every association there is to deal with the handicapped, people suffering mental illnesses, the profoundly mentally and physically disabled. The Cabinet Committee on Social Policy has met with them in every area of the province, which was never done before by any government, whether it was the three years when we had the socialists in power or before or since.

The Cabinet Committee on Social Policy traveled to every corner of this province to listen to just the kind of people you're talking about. We feel that the program we introduced that day is an excellent one, and it didn't come about just because we decided this is the way it's going to be. We consulted with the B.C. Association for Community Living — formerly British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People — the Arbutus Society in Victoria here and the Pacific Association for Autistic Citizens. We consulted with everybody before we put our program together, and by and large the people involved were more than pleased with the program. I said the day we introduced it that it isn't a program that's going to solve everybody's problems. There isn't a program around that will do that. But it will go a tremendous way to making a difference in these people's lives.

The member said they now have to pay for some alterations to their home and perhaps some transportation, and maybe that's so. But they will now have a chance to have the disposable income, because we've taken the burden of looking after the child off them — over $2,000 a month in some instances. It will free up the necessary funds so they can do some of the renovations needed in their home themselves, or they can have it done. It will also allow volunteer groups and agencies in communities to become involved.

I can't stress too much the need in our society for volunteer organizations. As I have said, I have seen societies where the volunteers no longer exist because the state has moved in and been all things to all people, and it has taken a great chunk out of the heart of society. Not only that, it has driven the costs out of sight and placed a burden on their taxpayers that the taxpayers simply cannot afford.

I wanted to spend a moment talking about that day we were in Vancouver announcing this program. I wasn't going to, but after listening to the motherhood again for 15 minutes, I feel compelled to paint a perhaps more accurate picture of what happened there that day than was portrayed on BCTV. I pick on them particularly because they have the most powerful newscast in this province and they have a responsibility to the people. Every night at 6 o'clock when you turn on BCTVs news, there are 600,000 other people turning on their TV sets to watch it. It's the most-watched newscast in all of Canada, so they have tremendous responsibility to the people.

On that occasion they did a real disservice to the people of this province. They've done it on other occasions, but I single out that one because this was a very significant program announced by the government, at a cost of nearly $15 million. There were roughly 200 people in that room with their handicapped children. If you could have seen the looks on their faces, they were overcome with delight, joy and pleasure for the program, except for one person in the room who was unhappy, and the cameras happened to zero in on her.

The woman who was unhappy with the program was there with the member opposite — the same person you brought here and humiliated on the lawns and in these buildings to get some TV coverage. I don't condemn you for that. That's your political style. You can do it as you wish. You can drag the Bonson child and the other ones in here in their wheelchairs, and you can use your style to do things you wish. But I do criticize BCTV on this occasion, because they did a real disservice to the province. They zeroed in on one person in the room who didn't happen to hear everything she wanted in the program, and that was basically the substance of what they carried on their news. I watched very carefully that night. They didn't show the Premier making the announcement. They didn't show the 200 people in the room or the fact that people were overjoyed at the program.

But more than that, they did a disservice because they didn't carry the information. It was a very significant program where I outlined.... You asked how they are going to access the program, and I outlined two pages of how we're working with the families. We're not doing this in isolation. We don't operate in a vacuum. We're doing it with the families and the organizations, and I could read into the record two pages of how we're going to implement this program, if you wished.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've asked you some specific questions. You're not answering them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You asked me how we were going to implement this program. Would we be working with the families? I've two pages — and I said it that day. But none of the good stuff was carried by BCTV that night. Thankfully, some of the other media did carry the story and carried it more completely, so the news is getting out. Later I'll be happy to give this member a copy of how we're going to implement the program.

I just want to wrap up this little monologue of mine by saying that we're very proud of the program. I think it's again leading the way in the country, if not in North America. It's been well thought out and will

[ Page 8813 ]

be of tremendous benefit to families who have a tremendous cross to bear.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that each question is introduced by 15 minutes of motherhood. This is my third session; I'm no longer offended by comments like that. But I am offended when the minister says that you know all of the information that I am providing you, and yet I still cannot get a specific answer from you to specific questions.

[3:45]

I'll go on. The minister says that this is a wonderful program. We have not yet seen in the Legislature a bill that would correspond with that program to make the delivery of such programs statutory. The minister can still mess around with that. The minister can decide next year that you'll no longer provide that program, much like the Strengthening the Family program. We saw the vote in the Premier's estimates last year, great foofaraw, all kinds of publicity, lots of TV advertising — and I can't find the vote. It's not there this time. Is that what's going to happen to this program?

Very clearly the families that depend on this kind of service need security for those children, because the kids cannot afford to be tossed back and forth from institution to home. Those families cannot afford to bring those kids home from institutions unless they can be assured that the programs will have some life-span; they must be assured that those programs will continue so that they won't have to tell Heather that she has to go back to an institution because the family can't meet the bill anymore.

We have a history of that in this province, where families that have gotten ICBC settlements have gone completely bankrupt trying to look after their kids at home. Those stories, unfortunately, are all too common.

I ask a specific question to the minister, and I won't take 15 minutes to pose it. Are you considering making those programs statutory at any point in time? Can you tell us why there was no bill in the Legislature this session to make the delivery of those services more secure?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There are two things the member should know. It doesn't require a bill, because it's covered under the GAIN Act; secondly, we have made a commitment to those people; thirdly, we've been deinstitutionalizing people since 1981. We have no intention of putting people back into institutions. And I repeat: we're leading the western world in that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: These programs are not statutory requirements in the GAIN Act. That is why your government could gut the social service network in 1983: because they were not statutory. You can do it again, because the only statutory requirement is your crisis management program.

The minister says that he has a commitment. Again, before leaving this particular area, the programs are few and far between throughout the province. They are effectively rationed by long waiting-lists, and for some programs like the respite program that was announced here, there is some means test. I use that language in the broadest terms, because the minister said when announcing the program that there would be an income test to respite programs. I will be very interested to see the specifics of that. As far as I know, people haven't seen any specifics. We've seen nice press releases. We've heard lots of rhetoric, but we haven't seen much in the way of specifics.

I want to talk about one specific family. I want to talk about Ryan Bonson. The minister has met him, and the minister sees what a keen kid he is. I think the minister would agree that Ryan needs to be in his community. We are slowly trying to work through that process, and it's not going to go away until we get Ryan home. I want to tell the minister that Ryan's not home yet, and I want to make the commitment to the minister that after the next election when we are government, we will make certain that there is an invitation to the minister — both the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Social Services — to come and have a welcome home party for Ryan. Even though we have not seen the progress that I believe we should have seen, I think the minister's intentions are good. The fact that we have a program in place now that begins to deal with some of those needs has to be credited to Ryan and his brave stand.

I have some more information on Ryan's case. The minister says that community organizations should provide support. Very few organizations will cover ventilators, and this is from an expert. The Kinsmen, the Lions and the B.C. Lung Association will not supply ventilators, feeling that the government should be involved in supplying these particular items. I am hoping that this program that the minister indicates will cover medical supplies and equipment will recognize the need to cover ventilators. The Variety Club telethon did provide two ventilators. A ventilator-dependent child needs to have two, because if one breaks down, there has to be another machine there right away to help that kid.

It should be remembered also that the family needs to qualify for assistance according to their guidelines connected with income. A maximum net income of $1,600 a month and two children or more in the family is the general qualifier for a community group to supply this equipment.

Let's talk about transportation. This is the most immediate need for Ryan. Ryan will need specific transportation. Heather Van Egdom, the other child who was here to meet with you, has a van that was supplied as a given by ICBC. When they were developing the settlement from that car accident, one of the givens was that this family is recognized as needing a van, and they got their van. The need for transportation to transport the child from school, back and forth from hospital and from medical appointments — there needs to be a secure mode of transportation. I ask the minister if there is any progress in that area and if the family can look

[ Page 8814 ]

forward to some support. No community group supplies vans to individuals.

We already talked about the need for support for renovations. The federal government, through grants, supports families who are renovating their house. There is $5,000 available for people with handicaps to make their homes more accessible. We need a commitment from the provincial government to do the same.

Does the minister have any more information on Ryan Bonson's case?

I would like to make it very clear that everyone in British Columbia who received a newspaper on Ryan Bonson's visit knows that the minister made a commitment to do whatever is necessary to get that little boy home. We intend to follow through on that. I'll also tell the minister that is the message I gave Glenda Bonson, Ryan's mother, when she heard the announcement of your program. I'm just informing the minister that I brought to Glenda Bonson's attention that you had made that commitment, that we intend to hold you to it and that she should not be concerned — she should continue to work through the system, through the process. It's very hard to keep your resolve going when you're facing such....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Let me just quickly respond to that. I made a commitment to the Bonsons that we would do everything possible to get Ryan home, and I will live up to that commitment. I don't make commitments lightly, and when I make them, I live up to them. But you must bear in mind — just to put it on the record — that there are many problems in Ryan Bonson's case; you know that. He's very medically fragile. His family has to be brought up to speed. They bought a new home, I understand, or they are buying one. It has to be modified, etc.

You're right, community organizations shouldn't have to buy ventilators and medical equipment, that's what this program will do. I didn't infer anything else. Community groups can help in other ways such as home renovation, transportation, etc.

I just want to get it on the record that I made that commitment, and so did the Minister of Health, that we will do everything in our power to get Ryan Bonson and others like him.... I've visited many little kids like Ryan; he's not the only one. I've seen dozens of them, and they touch my heart very deeply, I can tell you that. I think probably the most difficult thing in this ministry is dealing with kids who have tremendous handicaps. It really gets to me deeply. So you have my commitment, and so does Mrs. Bonson, that we will get Ryan home as quickly as we can.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to be very brief, but I want to address a question to the minister in relation to his housing responsibilities. I guess it's a question and a suggestion. There is no doubt that we have a need for more and different varieties of housing stock in British Columbia. I think one of those needs might well be fulfilled by a phenomenon which is old but which I think is gaining some more recent currency: that is, constructing on residential lots within cities what we euphemistically refer to as granny suites. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for those kinds of units to do a lot of things: to provide housing and to fulfil some of our policy goals as a society with respect to keeping families together — and, not coincidentally thereby, providing more housing.

I want to commend the minister for pulling together the people from the private sector in the very innovative way that he has, because I think they will be able to respond well to some of the needs out there, and to do so creatively, innovatively and perhaps in a very timely way. I would ask that the advisory group be asked, if it hasn't been already, to consider ways in which the ministry could provide some form of incentive or some other device to encourage municipalities, through their zoning, to allow for granny suites to be created in residential areas to provide another form of housing stock, and to do so in a way that enhances the family unit.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We have asked Mr. Thomas and his advisory group, made up of some 27 or 28 people, to look at all aspects of providing housing for all of society — seniors and everyone included. I am sure that they will look at the proposal that has been tried elsewhere called granny flats, and if they haven't already, I will make sure that they do so.

As you closed your comments, I am sure you are well aware that the final decision on whether to allow granny flats would be a municipal one, and one that councils and regional districts would have to deal with. But I will bring it to their attention.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would just like to wrap up the whole area for handicap support for children, and I would like to bring a couple of cases to the minister's attention. I again want to state that I don't want to take anything away from this program. It is well needed. There is a desperate need to coordinate programs throughout the province — back to my point on the need for family and child services brought under one umbrella.

In May the Victoria Handicapped Recreation Society announced that it was closing its doors. No extra funding was available. They felt they couldn't continue without permanent funding. Also the government rejected an increase in funding for handyDART, which was needed to meet an estimated 20 percent increase in ridership by elderly and handicapped people.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Rejection of a $300,000 proposal to provide bus services for preschool handicapped children in Vancouver — that's from the Vancouver-Richmond Association for Mentally Handicapped People. They say that the rejected budget will mean that some children will not be able to get to a preschool education.

Families with disabled children will finally receive some assistance for extra costs and respite, but

[ Page 8815 ]

there is a need to ensure that other programs are not paying for this particular program. We need a coordinated approach to support families and children in their communities. Without that, the cost to the province will be phenomenal, and the cost to families will be phenomenal.

It's most unfortunate, and I hope that we can get a commitment from the minister that his estimates next year will be first up. Then we can do service to some of these very valid, important concerns that are all too obvious in your ministry.

We have touched on the issue of program supports for women in the community, for transition houses, violence and so on. I think there is a need to recognize another very vulnerable group which needs to be supported in the work they are doing. Those are the groups that are working for disabled women; one in particular that I think has a tremendous record is DAWN.

DAWN provides information, in a survey that they did of 245 women with disabilities, that 40 percent had been raped, assaulted or abused, and 64 percent had been verbally abused. They comment that girls with disabilities have a less than equal chance of escaping violence. Women with disabilities have little access to service for victims of violence Women with multiple disabilities are multiply abused. We need to say that for the record to give voice to that organization and emphasize to the minister that those programs are in need of support and recognition for the work they do.

Finally, I have conducted a bit of a survey myself. This was through the Canadian Mental Health Association and one group of that organization. I asked them to provide me with information of concerns that they had in facing difficulty in servicing their clients I want to share those concerns with the ministry in the hopes that we will begin to address some of those concerns.

The organization says that the majority of people they work with are diagnosed as having schizophrenia, which is a permanent and often extremely debilitating illness. In their attempts to deal with these people — many of them are on GAIN for the handicapped — the organization faces repeated problems. The interpretation of the regulations is read in such a way that they are restrictive. It is very difficult to get these people classified as handicapped. They would ask the minister to direct the front-line people in such a way that they don't face that repeated difficulty.

To summarize some of the concerns around the need for the allowable earnings rate to be higher and more flexible, to allow for more successful gradual re-entry into the workforce, people need medical and health benefits in order to survive. They must be guaranteed that these benefits can be either retained or provided for when they are not covered by employment. People must be able to accumulate savings so that they can become financially self-sufficient.

There are other specifics that I don't think I necessarily need to read into the record. I think the minister has heard on several different occasions from groups like this that there is a need to increase the amount of money to top up income assistance for the handicapped. I will provide for the minister a summary of all of their concerns and look forward to a response in writing. Hopefully that will help to improve that particular system.

I would like to talk about the reorganization. I know that other members want to ask the minister some questions, but I'll just put a couple of questions to you.

Through the reorganization, Mr. Minister, where you actually ended up opening different offices, you provided us with a chart that outlined the number of professionals in each office. Has there been an increase in clerical support to those offices? It's my understanding that the clerical support to the field offices has remained static. That is causing a considerable bottleneck, frustrating not only the professionals, the people who are trying to provide service, but also the clients, because the whole paperwork system is so extensive and takes up so much time that people are perhaps not getting the service that they should.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Victoria Handicapped Recreation Society unfortunately came to us halfway through the budget year. We are looking at finding a way of funding their program, but I'm sure the member appreciates that we cannot fund every program that comes along. There are times when government has to say no.

We've increased clerical support by 30. We're also increasing the number of desktop computers to cut down on the paperwork and give the workers more support in that way.

On the other point that you make, Madam Member, I want you to look back in the Blues from either last year or the year before, or both. The last two years in this ministry I have gone first in estimates, and I was criticized by my critic for going first, who said it was too important and I should have waited. So this year I waited, and now I get criticized for going last.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I've tried it for the first time this way, and I don't like it. Let's do it first, okay?

Another question.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were finished.

MS. SMALLWOOD: No. We will be finished very soon. As I said, one other member wants to ask a question.

I want to close by again stressing the need for a royal commission, both on income assistance and on services to children and youth. The resolution that I'm sure has been forwarded to the minister from the British Columbia Association of Social Workers outlines some of the concerns that are shared by church groups, by clients of your ministry and now by the professionals.

[ Page 8816 ]

The BCASW code of ethics contains a commitment to pursue the goals of social justice. Because of that commitment, they passed a resolution that urges the government to establish a royal commission to look at the entire area of income support programs and to provide public hearings in communities throughout the province. The guiding principles of the royal commission include those used by the Ontario Social Assistance Review Committee in developing new income support more responsive to the needs of the recipients. The royal commission should develop a system that mandates client advocacy and the provision of professional preparation and continuing education opportunities for staff.

For the component for social services to children and youth, they ask that the commission examine and make recommendations with respect to the preventive social services needed to serve families and children at risk and with respect to specialized professional services to emotionally disturbed and behaviourally disordered children; conduct full examination of current structures for delivery of services to children and youth in view of recommending a new system designed to avoid fragmentation in service delivery and promote the concerted collaboration of government ministries, volunteer agencies, professional disciplines and the services of children and youth to examine and recommend with respect to the range of advocacy mechanisms both within and without government to ensure the needs of children and youth in the province.

I would submit to you, Mr. Minister, that you have heard from a broad range of interests throughout British Columbia calling on you to organize a royal commission looking at the services and the state of families and the poor in British Columbia. It's been my privilege to again bring them to your attention, and I add my call to those I have already outlined.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Prior to reorganization in the ministry we did extensive surveys of clients, staff and community groups, and we will be doing it again soon to get their opinions on how things are working.

I have a copy of the resolution the member read out. We've had it for a while, and we take it very seriously.

The other thing is, we're not totally reinventing the wheel here. We are looking very closely at the Thomson report from Ontario. That was very extensive, and we're looking at their findings very carefully.

I thank the member for her comments.

MR. BARNES: I know the minister will be pleased to see me take my place, because I'm usually very brief and get right to the point.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And very good too.

MR. BARNES: He's says I'm very good. I hope he will feel that way after I've made my remarks.

In all seriousness, I want to say this about the minister. We've worked behind the scenes as much as in front in trying to help constituents, and I've been pleased with the success in doing something constructive in a very difficult ministry.

There are a couple of questions I want to ask the minister. The first is: is there an agreement between your ministry and the Unemployment Insurance Commission with respect to collecting overpayments to people who were on UI but are now on social assistance? The reason I ask that question is that it's my understanding that UI staff are quite energetic and are in fact encouraged to collect these overpayments from people on social assistance. While there's no issue with respect to their owing these moneys, in many instances clearly — and I'm sure the minister would agree — they have no extra money to make the payments, and that's a problem. As you may have in your ministry when people are overpaid, there has to be some special arrangement or consideration with respect to those repayments.

[4:15]

I raise this because I had a phone call recently from a former employee who was under so much pressure to collect this money that she resigned rather than use strong tactics and intimidation to get the money from people in your ministry who were unable to make payments.

The other question is with respect to the social assistance workers in the ministries. I'm not going to mention any of the branches specifically, but as a registered social worker myself it always disturbs me when I hear reports of abusive or insensitive comments and treatment with respect to clients who come to your ministry. I'm sure in many instances social workers are provoked by some of the characters they have to deal with, and certainly they're overloaded with caseloads, and working conditions may not always be conducive to being up every day to deal with stress and difficulties. Nonetheless, it still disturbs me when I hear what happened in one specific case where a woman who is a chronic alcoholic but managed to abstain for about 14 months recently was given notice when she went off the wagon and found herself drinking again. She spent the rent money, which was some $400, went back to her apartment with her room-mate, and when they were unable....

What happened, to make it quite precise, is that they had the money in the bank to pay the rent, but the landlord was slow in cashing the cheque, and during this relapse period the woman spent the money and received an eviction notice. As of July 19 she had to be out in five days. She went to the ministry with this story. The ministry is dealing with matters such as this all the time, and this is why I talk about the social worker's attitude, which was very abusive and non-confidential. There were a lot of altercations taking place in the open area where there were other people listening, and the woman was made to feel less than deserving of any consideration.

I don't defend her, to the extent that she hadn't exercised the restraint she should have. Nonetheless

[ Page 8817 ]

here is a typical problem where the ministry reprimands on the one hand and then tells this person: "Go ahead. When you're evicted, find another place and we'll give you the first month's rent, we'll pay the security deposit, we'll help you relocate. But we're not going to intervene in this eviction." I find that incongruous. It's not rational that they would probably spend more money to help this person relocate than to assist them in the place where they are. It's a hard one to handle in terms of regulations, but it's a human situation. The disturbing thing is that this woman is obviously sick, because she spent her rent money. She was very remorseful, very apologetic, and submitted herself to the ministry, but the ministry wasn't receptive on that particular day. I think we have to continue to work at these things. It's a very difficult problem for the social workers, but it's even more difficult, I feel, for those people who feel that the bureaucracy is not capable of being human enough to deal with these problems.

Could you address those two questions? I hope you would give the types of answers that we could move that your vote be approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the first question, no, we do not have an agreement with UIC for recovery. Since the Finlay case in Manitoba, which is now being appealed, we are really not at liberty to recover any overpayments from anyone on social assistance. The case is being appealed. Until we hear the results of that appeal, we are not recovering any overpayments, even if it's our error. That's the whole other side of it. But we do not have an agreement.

Secondly, I agree with you that no matter how much stress the social worker is under....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the best of my knowledge, no, I don't think so.

I do agree with you that no matter how busy a person in government is, whether they're a social worker or not — we all have good days and bad days — they shouldn't be insensitive to clients. If you know of an instance, and obviously you do, why don't you give me the name outside of the House, and we'll deal with it. We'll deal with any staff person who is less than sensitive to our clients, no matter how troublesome they may be. We know some of them are very difficult to deal with, and they come in for crisis grant after crisis grant. There still is no need for less than humane treatment and for being insensitive. So if you'll tell me outside of the House, we'll deal with it.

I'm told by my deputy that you cannot garnishee anyone who is on income assistance. GAIN, welfare or whatever you want to call it is not garnisheeable.

MR. BARNES: I just want to say that it seems to me that it would be worthwhile to communicate that fact to UIC, because they have a policy now where they're instructing their staff to collect this money aggressively. I think it's inappropriate. First of all, the money isn't there, and it just doesn't make sense. I think it would be worthwhile if there could be some communication on that.

Vote 64 approved.

Vote 65: ministry operations, $1,577,739,736 — approved.

Vote 66: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, 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. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 90.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 90; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. SIHOTA: I just wonder exactly what the remedy is here. In dealing with the family and child service provisions and disclosure, what exactly were you trying to attend to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There are a number of reasons. One might be a medical matter; another might be a situation where, in the superintendent's view, it might be appropriate that a previous relationship continue. Under (b), in the instance of a person who is a status Indian, the native community has requested on several occasions that the information be made available so that members of bands can be reunited.

MR. SIHOTA: What was wrong with the current legislation that would prevent individuals and bands from being reunited? Was there a provision in there that prevented that from happening?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Was there one in the previous legislation that denied any of this information, or is this something that's totally new?

[ Page 8818 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: There simply wasn't authority for it.

MR. SIHOTA: This matter of the superintendent disclosing information under the first subsection where he considers the disclosure would be in the best interests of the adopted person.... Is there a process where one makes an application in that regard or makes submissions as to what may or may not be in the best interests?

To make the point clear, I'm thinking of a situation where someone may want to make a submission after he has ruled that they don't consider it to be in the best interests.

HON. S.D. SMITH: There will be a process. I don't have it at my fingertips to give to the member.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SIHOTA: In dealing with section 3 of this legislation, was the ability to make regulations not present in the earlier legislation, or is there something else we're trying to remedy in terms of cleaning up the legislation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I understand that previously there were powers, but this simply cleans it up and makes it more understandable.

MR. SIHOTA: What was the problem with the earlier legislation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There was some question as to whether the wording provided for assisted adoptions.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fair enough; that answers my questions.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. SIHOTA: Could I get some clarification in terms of what's being requested here, and what the intent of section 5 is?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It simply provides for the power to collect interest on taxes being collected by the municipality on behalf of the Assessment Authority, but which have not been paid to the Assessment Authority by August 1.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. CLARK: I gather this is to change something from legislation to regulation. Is the purpose of this to increase the fees for fur farms?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There's no increase simultaneously provided with it. It is simply to provide the authority for that to be done by order.

[4:30]

MR. CLARK: In principle it is always better, it seems to me, to have these kinds of details in legislation rather than regulation. I understand a concern that putting a fixed fee into legislation may render it obsolete over time. So if it's going to regulation, and the minister says there's no change in the fee, it seems to be a completely redundant section.

The minister says there's no change in the fee. These three sections seem to be completely redundant. Surely the government wants the power of order-in-council to raise the fees. I don't see any other rationale for it. Is there another rationale?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No. The fees may very well be changed at some time. The rationale is very simple: it is to provide for that power to be done by regulation rather than to have to amend legislation.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure I understand this. Could the minister just explain to me what the. intent here is?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The Crown has vested in it certain riparian rights, be they at the foreshore — for instance, the right to develop a dock or a wharf or some access out onto the water, or even to access the water itself in those locations, which are very few in British Columbia, where you may have riparian water rights still residual rather than the system of licensing. What this does is retain for the Crown access to that foreshore to be able to assert its riparian rights while at the same time allowing the owner of the property to carry on with its development.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. CLARK: These are changes to the Mineral Tenure Act. I'd just ask the minister to explain precisely what is to be accomplished by these next few sections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, 14 clarifies the responsibility of a free miner who locates a claim, and alters the definition of "mineral" to include the administration of all industrial minerals under the Mineral Tenure Act. Previously that had been divided between the Mineral Tenure Act and the Land Act; industrial minerals were under the Land Act and the rest were under the Mineral Tenure Act.

Section 15 repeals the current section 6 and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of a free miner.

[ Page 8819 ]

Section 16 grants free miners and their agents the right of entry to explore for minerals or for placer minerals. It asserts that more fully.

Section 17 clarifies that a counterclaim may be located on mineral lands which are already occupied by a claim, and it standardizes the commencement time for all claims at 7 a.m.

Section 18 provides consistency of wording in the act.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain what the practical implications of these changes are, moving the definition from the Land Act to the Mineral Tenure Act. If that's all it does, that's fine, but it seems to me that this perhaps enhances the rights of free miners in British Columbia.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The moving of it out of the Land Act into the Mineral Act is so that the free miner will deal with the Mineral Tenure Act and not with the Land Act. It puts it in one spot, so they know their rights and responsibilities, and they can look to one piece of legislation to determine what they should do or what they cannot do.

MR. CLARK: I guess the question is whether there's something in the Land Act that free miners object to, or something that this facilitates, or whether it is essentially a bureaucratic change which simply moves it over to the Mineral Tenure Act and has no practical significance for free miners.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Very much not a bureaucratic change; it's a wonderful expression of the notion that we should only put in one simple piece of legislation that which miners might have to look at in order to know their rights and responsibilities. So when you're out staking your claims and grubbing around for mineral, you will only carry your Mineral Tenure Act around in your mackinaw pocket and not the Mineral Tenure Act and the hugely complicated Land Act.

Sections 14 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could simply explain the practical significance of this amendment.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll defer to the Solicitor-General, whose legislation this is.

HON. MR. REE: It's quite simple really. It's felt that the present timely appeal period is too short a period for someone making an appeal to a decision of the director, and it's extending it to 30 days. Also, it's moving the payment of fees to the appeal board because it has its own budget. It's more of a bookkeeping legislative amendment than anything else.

MR. PERRY: Just one brief question for the Solicitor-General. Does this section have any implications for the unauthorized possession of videos such as the AIDS video from the Ministry of Health? Would it have implications for the display of the video in the Legislature which occurred a couple of weeks ago?

HON. MR. REE: I think if the member would read the original section in the legislation plus this amendment, he would see no reference to that at all. It's dealing with an appeal procedure and has nothing to do with any videos.

MR. PERRY: I may be confusing the section. It's perhaps in 25 or 26. Maybe he could comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can only comment on that when we get to it.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it there's no search warrant or anything like that — that you can just go in and seize. Is that the way it works, or is this tied in with some search warrant provision? It allows someone to go in there and, I take it, seize any adult film. I take it you must define adult film, but you don't have to get a search warrant or anything, do you?

HON. MR. REE: The general law will apply on this, but at the moment the only method of seizure of any tapes is by the laying of a charge or seeking a civil injunction. It's time-consuming and expensive and quite often the evidence may have disappeared. The notes I have here are: to provide authority to seize approved adult motion pictures and video from an unlicensed distributor or retailer; someone that is not licensed. Currently the only methods for proceeding against unlicensed persons are to charge them with an offence or to seek a civil injunction. Both these remedies, as I stated, are costly and time-consuming and therefore not very effective. A problem arises in adult videos being distributed in family video outlets, and the proposed amendments are limited to those situations.

MR. SIHOTA: What are you trying to remedy here? Are you saying you just never had that authority before, or that you had the authority but you had to go to court and so now you'd just like to get it? Then, if someone wants to take issue with you, they'll take you to court as opposed to you having to take them to court. Is that basically how you expect it to work now?

HON. MR. REE: One of the difficulties that have been experienced is the police not being as readily available, shall we say, or as interested in prosecution in this type of offence where we have some retailer with a family licence distributing adult movies. In

[ Page 8820 ]

those situations this will make it simpler for the staff of the motion picture branch to do the seizures. In essence, it's mainly in respect to a breach of licence where one doesn't have the licence to sell the product or distribute it.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a situation in my riding — which the minister may or may not be aware of right now — in the municipality of Esquimalt where individuals in that community have video stores. They have now made application to set up booths where one can walk in, pay a fee and watch the film. You can also — and I could be mistaken on this part — preview a video prior to its acquisition.

Needless to say, there's a lot of concern in the community — I think correctly, because the material is sexually explicit — and the view, which I concur with, is that this type of material ought not to be made available in these types of stores in that fashion. Certainly part of the concern is that it's degrading to women. That's not what we're trying to remedy here by this section, but there's a concern that there is very little one can do through the regulatory process through law to try to prevent this type of thing from happening, and you get into real extenuated debates about whether you can grant people business licences.

Really, the problem isn't with business licences granted municipally; the problem lies at the provincial level in terms of regulation of this kind of stuff and seizing of the material if indeed there's no licence. I am just wondering, in the case of one of your standard licensed video stores that exist in the community, would this section apply to allow you to seize the material that is being shown in the booths or do you have to require a licence first under the Motion Picture Act to even show the stuff in booths? Then this section would only deal with it if you hadn't got your licence and you're showing it in a booth.

Does it deal with the situation that I am raising, which is people that have a booth and don't have a licence to show movies but have a business licence to sell a pornographic video? I don't know if that remedies the situation. If it does, I would welcome it, because there is quite a concern in my community about it. If you don't know, that's fair enough too.

HON. MR. REE: I concur with the concern of the member. I have the same concerns with respect to these outlets that have the secluded booths and what not. I believe this would certainly allow the seizure of videos that are not approved by the director, or if the establishment has not been licensed for adults and they were displaying adult films, it would allow the seizure of the adult films.

[4:45]

What you're looking for is possibly in the next amendment. It would not completely answer your concern, but it might go a little along the way. I don't know just how far that next amendment could be applied to booth situations.

MR. PERRY: Can I just briefly rephrase that question I put earlier, which appears to apply more to section 25(2). Would this have any implications for the non-commercial demonstration of a video like the AIDS video, such as was held in the Legislature recently? Can the minister clarify that for me? Because in reading the language here, it implies that anyone authorized may seize any film that he believes will be exhibited and has not been approved. Reading that with the layman's eyes, it appears that it might apply to a film like the Colin James AIDS video. Can you clarify that that is not the case?

HON. MR. REE: I know the second member for Point Grey has an inordinate interest in the distribution of condoms and that sort of thing, and I can appreciate that him asking this question before.... He does so at any opportunity to raise the issue.

It would not be restricted unless that film was being licensed for retail commercial purposes. Then if it was licensed it would be fine, but if it was an unlicensed one for educational purposes, as it is, this section would not apply.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. LOVICK: I remember vividly that it was only a very short time ago, in 1988, that we had the Privatization Benefits Fund Act introduced, and some of us on this side of the House at the time wondered whether that had been done with indelicate haste and whether the ministry perhaps knew entirely what it was about. Curiously, we now discover an amendment to that act. Apparently what was done with great care and concern and great understanding was inadequate, and therefore we have this amendment brought before us less than a year later.

The obvious question to pose is why is this amendment offered? What is intended, then, by changing it, by altering the process in terms of when those moneys should be returned to general revenue?

I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) isn't here to answer the question, but to the Attorney-General: what is the reason for this change? It is passing strange to us that there should be a need for a change in this short period of time.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I agree entirely with the first member for Nanaimo that this legislation was, indeed, fetched in 15 or so months ago with great care and much concern and reflecting an inordinate amount of due diligence that had been done to perfect and bring the best possible legislative package before members here that was then available. But even as we had all opined about the excellence of that legislation in this chamber, we have been able to improve upon it. As difficult as that is to imagine, given how excellent it was when it came in, indeed it can be improved upon.

So what we are doing here is simply providing.... For instance, if a fund or an investment is in a certain

[ Page 8821 ]

form and the time provided by the current legislation to move it to consolidated revenue fund comes about, you can, in fact, leave it in that form of investment, because it may very well be attracting a better rate or a better return for the taxpayer. That's all it does. It allows you to maintain that flexibility so you can preserve the asset in a form that attracts the best return for the taxpayer.

MR. LOVICK: Of course, we on this side have no argument with the logic of that. What I would point out to the Attorney-General, however, is: where was that logic 15 months ago? Are you telling us that at that time you weren't thinking about the best interests of the taxpayer? I can't resist making the point, Mr. Attorney, and I'm sure you will appreciate that you are, indeed, hoist by your own logical petard and you will grant to all of us in this House that perhaps the original legislation was not as carefully crafted or as well thought out as it ought to have been.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we'll let that section pass.

MR. CLARK: I'm just moved to respond. I might note, for the benefit of the House, that what the government has done with the finances is something that we've discussed at great length. I won't take the opportunity to do that today, except to say that what this amendment does is allow the government to retain any theoretical earnings — or real earnings — of the privatization fund in the fund until it becomes politically more desirable for them to extract from the fund and put moneys into an election fund or anything of that manner.

What this does is gives the government another handle. The government said: "We're not going to spend the capital on the privatization benefits fund." But what they can do now is retain the earnings in the fund and then take them all out, say, a couple of months before an election, or something like that, and use them for whatever they deem fit.

This gives the government more flexibility, as the Attorney-General said, to use the fund in what they deem as their best political interest. Let's be honest. What is the fund for? It's simply an attempt to convince people that there are benefits to privatization — that no one is convinced of. It's an attempt to use the funds — the capital, the selling-off of the assets of British Columbia — for current-day expenditures, for current-day programs, for election programs to try and get them elected. That's what it's all about.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Gracious me, Mr. Chairman I've never seen that cynical side of the second member for Vancouver East before. I'm surprised. I can only add that perhaps we could have got this improvement in the legislation 15 months ago if legislators, if all of us.... That is our job, and we see legislation as making suggestions for improvement, and we worked hard on this legislation. There was a lot of debate. I don't recall the first member for Nanaimo at that time, among the many improvements he had, suggesting this one. Perhaps he did.

The second member for Vancouver East is on the wrong tack. It's very simple. It provides an opportunity for the taxpayers to get the best rate of return, because it provides the authority to preserve the assets, the investment, in a form that attracts the best return to the taxpayer. It's that simple and that complicated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't want to prolong this debate. This, after all, is one of the most innocuous proposed amendments and hardly justifies lengthy discussion. However, I do think it's very important for us to put on the record for the House that, contrary to the misleading comments by the second member for Vancouver East, the privatization benefits fund is the morally correct and fiscally responsible way to record the proceeds of privatization in public accounts.

The effect of this is to ensure that every single generation of British Columbians receives a benefit from the decision to privatize. That's contrary to the principle that has been applied in every other jurisdiction that I know of, which has taken the proceeds of privatization and used them to balance a current year's budget.

I have sat in this House and heard irresponsible comments by members of the opposition, in which they allege that we have been using smoke and mirrors to deal with public accounts, and that we are misrepresenting the actual statement of affairs of public business in a financial sense. I can tell the House categorically that the best refutation of that misrepresentation by the opposition is the existence of the privatization benefits account.

That is the very proof that this administration is dedicated to not using smoke and mirrors in terms of using public money. When we say we are going to balance the budget, we do it without using proceeds from privatization in any one fiscal year. That is the fiscally responsible way to report public expenditures and public revenues, Mr. Member. This government is very proud of the fact that we are the only jurisdiction that I am aware of in the western world that has had that sense of moral integrity and disciplined mental approach in terms of how we husband public money, and in terms of how we manage it.

We are the only jurisdiction that has shown that kind of leadership. It's about time, on the eve of this House adjourning for the session, that the members opposite had the generosity of heart to at least concede that this method of dealing with the proceeds of privatization.... Irrespective of how it's calculated, the principle established by the existence of this bill and this fund I think speaks for itself. It puts the lie to all of the misrepresentations that we've heard over the last four months in this House about how public money is managed.

MR. CLARK: I won't be drawn into debate on the government's finances at this late date, but I want

[ Page 8822 ]

members of the House to know what the minister says is an innocuous clause does. The previous Privatization Benefits Fund Act required by law that the interest on that fund went into general revenue.

This gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the option of not putting it into the general revenue and then, at a later date, taking out more of the money into general revenue.

It does allow them not to take it out for a period of time and then, just before an election, to draw out all of the accrued earnings to use for electoral purposes. That's what this innocuous little section does.

MR. LOVICK: The only place in the western world.

MR. CLARK: This is the only place in the western world that has a BS fund and a privatization benefits fund, and that minister and this government are the only people who are proud of that fact. This little innocuous amendment gives them more flexibility, as the Attorney-General said, to use the fund in — heaven forbid — a political manner to try to buy their way into an election, which, by the way, won't work this time.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are going to be consistent with your logic path, in terms of the creation of the privatization benefits fund, you must ensure that it retains its fiscal capacity. You must ensure that it doesn't erode with inflation and with the passage of time. You must ensure that it continues to be a significant number. Therefore this little amendment merely has the effect of ensuring that the value of the fund does not reduce over time. It's a simple thing and hardly worthy of all of this blather.

Nevertheless, because we are so committed to the principle that we won't take those one-time windfalls and spend them, we want to make sure that the legislation recognizes the need to keep the fund whole and fiscally comparable with the dollars that we put into it this year and last year.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me ask the humble and soft-spoken Minister of Finance this one question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Warm and fuzzy.

MR. SIHOTA: Warm and fuzzy, some say.

Let me ask him this one question: will he agree, as Minister of Finance, not to spend one penny of that fund in the next fiscal year? Next year is supposed to be an election year. Will you agree not to make any expenditures next year?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: What are we here for? Are we here to manage public money responsibly, or are we here to play political games? We are elected, it seems to me, to manage public affairs. My job is to manage public money. You can disparage my ability to do that; I won't argue that. The record stands for itself, and I am proud of the record.

[5:00]

To the principle that you would forgo earning possibilities for political gain: that strikes me as being irresponsible. We are surely here to make sure that the public gets value for money. What's wrong with value for money? The opposition seems to think that somehow money is a dirty word. Value for money is what we're all here for, surely — to provide assistance and services to people that are cost-effective and well-managed.

Mr. Chairman, this administration has been in office only three short years, and we have brought forward more legislation, we have made more landmark decisions, than ever before in the history of the province, for goodness' sake. The record of accomplishment that has been reached by this administration in those three years is something we're very proud of. You seem to be suggesting, my friends, that somehow or other you would like to see that credibility eroded for political manipulation purposes. I stand, and all of our friends on this side of the House stand, on the side of representing the citizens of this province equitably. This little amendment does that.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe the Minister of Finance will tell us which riding he's going to run in now.

MR. BLENCOE: He doesn't have a riding now.

MR. SIHOTA: No. Why don't you come over to Esquimalt? We'd be most happy to accommodate you there.

I asked a question of the Attorney-General yesterday when we had a brief discussion on this section and we were dealing with the principle of the debate. He said in his short comment that these were "crucial" employees. I'm just wondering now if he can expand on that. That was the language you used, Mr. Attorney-General; the word you used was "crucial." I am just wondering: is that the justification for excluding these people from the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that phraseology doesn't sound like that which would fall out of my mouth, It's possible, although it's not probable. In any event, these employees are certainly important. But more importantly than that, it is considered important that these employees in the courts, the staff in the courts of our province, places such as our Legislative Library, and so on, be available to serve the public at all times. That's what the amendment seeks to do.

Similar amendments, I believe, have been done on a number of occasions. It was done a couple of times in 1975; it was done in 1978, '79, '80, '84 and '85. Governments of the day, of differing stripes, made

[ Page 8823 ]

those decisions. What was referred to with the word "crucial," which does sound more like what I would say, was that they are employees who work in certain crucial areas.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm trying to find the justification for removing these people from their bargaining.... They've entered into a contract; they're unionized employees. The minister says they do important jobs, and they must be available to serve the public. All public sector employees do important jobs, and they're always available to serve the public. That's the nature of their job. What justification does the government present for the removal of these people from their status as unionized employees?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member is quite right, Mr. Chairman, all government employees do important work. I suppose it is generally the case that most employees of government work in crucial areas. It is also the case that there are some areas of government where the notion and the implications of independence, by the nature of what it is that is being done, are more paramount perhaps than it is in others. I think the member would agree that the courts well might be one of those locations and the Legislative Library is another. The need to have that service provided on a continuous basis, independent of any other consideration, is considered to be of paramount importance and should be reflected, therefore, in the act.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm still trying to get some indication of the government's justification for removing these people. There are unionized government employees in all sorts of, shall we say, sensitive positions. Is the minister saying that the government sees an inherent conflict between these people's status as employees who have union membership and their jobs? Is he saying that there's some kind of conflict there?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying that there are some areas where it is considered that the notion of the institution or the service-delivery agency's independence is such and sufficient that people who are employed there ought not to be constrained by any other consideration than keeping that agency open and operating for the public benefit and the public good at all times and in all circumstances. That is the rationale and, I might say, Mr. Chairman, the only rationale that I will be offering.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says "constrained." Constrained in what way? Where is this constraint? I'm trying to get the minister to explain. Could he elaborate when he says that there are some constraints? What are the constraints? Is the constraint the fact that these people have a collective agreement with the government?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If one looks at the operation of the courts, if you have a duty to that institution and you also have a duty to honour the terms of an agreement that you have entered into, and if you were put in a position where that agreement required you not to go to work, then obviously you couldn't honour your duty to the independent institution. I think that the member can understand that.

MR. SIHOTA: If there's a problem about an individual not being able to attend their duty to the court, if you want to put it that way, and the provisions of a collective agreement, there are manners by which those conflicts can be resolved. There's grievance. There's arbitration. There's negotiation, mediation. There are discussions that go on all the time, where there may be a difference in objective by management and what is contained in a collective agreement.

Surely you would have to agree with me that the way to resolve those types of conflicts is through the collective bargaining regime that we've set up, not simply by imposing your will that these people not be part of the unionized component. Surely you would agree that there are other ways to resolve those types of things. If you, as a minister, decide you want to have night sittings in family court and there are some constraints in the collective agreement, there are ways to resolve that. Surely you would agree with me that it's preferable to resolve those through the mechanisms established through the collective agreement rather than by just simply declaring these people no longer to be employees in this fashion.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Perhaps if the member can't understand or accept the words I've used to explain the situation in relation to the courts, for instance, he might understand what is meant by the words that have been used by the Chief Justice of British Columbia to deal with the issues. You are suggesting there is mediation and there are ways you might resolve individual problems should they arise, and I quote Chief Justice Allan McEachern:

"It would be a monstrous situation, indeed, if a citizen were forced to lose his charter rights due to picketing or any other interference with his or her access to the courts. The maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied' is apposite here. The court's jurisdiction to deal with such interference quickly and resolutely is both necessary to protect the citizen and to the rule of law."

That is the view of the Chief Justice, that it is preferable to not have, in this instance, the process that the member has suggested.

There are those who have looked at it, weighed it carefully — weighed other areas, I might add, including others in my own ministry — and decided that perhaps in those instances it was not necessary or even perhaps desirable. But in these instances it is and the rationale is as I have suggested.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, that quote that you cite, if memory serves me correctly, was a quote that came

[ Page 8824 ]

from the Chief Justice when the court took umbrage with the fact there were picketers outside of the courts during the BCGEU strike. That's what he was talking about. I believe that at the time, the court on its own motion brought forward this whole issue and then directed that those pickets be removed. It didn't have anything to do with the type of situation we're talking about here.

Perhaps the Attorney-General, if I could make this simpler, could give me an example of what you're trying to remedy by this situation. Give me an example as it deals with the courts, because we're both familiar with the courts. Give me a real-life example that brings about this concern that can't be negotiated or resolved through the collective bargaining process.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't think I could have said it any better than the member did when he referred to the situation that the quote is from, and that's the example.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to put this on the record, because the minister has been unable to give us an example. In my opinion, what you're trying to do is pretty broad-based, and you've really chosen here to break the collective agreement. You've obviously got a frustration somewhere in terms of these people. There are things you would like to do and impose upon them that you don't think you can negotiate through the collective bargaining process, and you've now made a decision to say that your views as a government, which you wish to impose on them, are paramount to their democratically made decision to join the union. You're imposing your views and busting a contract, and you're doing it deliberately.

Will the minister not agree that all the government is doing here is taking that type of a contract-busting stance?

[5:15]

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, of course I wouldn't agree with that, and while the member was talking to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) I gave him quite a specific example.

The position he takes is erroneous. I'll use the staff of the courts and read to you the words of one of the members:

"On behalf of the judges' secretaries, I've been asked to invite you to meet with us to discuss our present status. The secretaries would like an opportunity to sit down with you to field some questions regarding the apparent lack of action on our request for exclusion and reclassification. Our formal request for reclassification and exclusion was made in October 1986, and now, some 28 months later, we have only a temporary solution to show for our wait." 

And so on.

I'm sure the member's assertions are honestly and sincerely expressed, but they are completely erroneous and misplaced.

MR. CLARK: The minister's defence of the section is absolute nonsense. Any employer can exclude people from the bargaining unit under certain rules. If it's a manufacturing shop and someone doesn't work with their hands, for example, very often that person is excluded from the bargaining unit. Under the current collective agreement the government has signed, there are rules by which an employer can exclude people from the bargaining unit. They have that power, and they have exercised that power on many occasions. If the power is not adequate, that can be changed through negotiations. If, as a result of the language in the collective agreement the government feels that it cannot exclude the people they desire to exclude, then it can negotiate it.

I think in several of these cases there was an attempt to go to arbitration to have people removed. Using the language in the collective agreement, they went to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled against the government. The government lost in arbitration. They could have gone — and no doubt did — to negotiation and suggested certain changes to accommodate exclusions; they lost or did not achieve that in their negotiations. They lost in arbitration, they didn't achieve it in their negotiations, and then they bring in a bill to unilaterally exclude people from the bargaining unit. That is what is so offensive, and that is what clearly demonstrates the anti-union bias that exists on that side of the House.

We have seen an anti-union bias in legislation in this House. We have seen over 1,000 people removed by legislation — some suggest up to 3,000 — over the last few years. They have failed to arbitrate the situation to their satisfaction and failed to negotiate it, so they've chosen to act unilaterally. That's offensive. It is in many respects what gives the government.... By the way, it is important to note that even the IRC rejected certain applications to remove people from the bargaining unit. Even their own appointed anti-union board rejected their attempt to remove people from the bargaining unit, so they've chosen to bring this in.

I want to talk very briefly about what I think are special cases with respect to regulators, the Securities Commission and the Financial Institutions Commission. Their staff will now be deunionized under this section. I have a concern that regulators, say, in the Securities Commission, by the very definition of their job, have to enforce tough regulations. They have to step on toes from time to time. They have to be aggressive; that's their job. I think that makes them potentially more vulnerable.

Say Securities Commission staff are being aggressive in enforcing new and tougher legislation the government has brought in. It may be that the people who are affected by the legislation or by the regulator might be offended by that. They might bring to bear some political pressure on the government or on the people running the Securities Commission. Well, now they can be removed. They have no protection after this legislation is passed here today.

I think that people in those sensitive positions — those enforcing regulations under the Securities Commission or the Financial Institutions Commission — are potentially more vulnerable than other em-

[ Page 8825 ]

ployees. They are more vulnerable to political pressure, and therefore should be allowed the democratic right to join a union if they so desire. Once again, Mr. Chairman, that's another important principle that this government fails to see and violates repeatedly: that it is their right in a free country to choose to associate in a trade union if they desire to do so. No one has forced them to join the union. No one has said that they couldn't decertify if they so desire. This unilaterally removes a democratic right that we have in this country to freely associate and to join a trade union.

The minister's defence is simply not acceptable. In fact, it is offensive, because the legitimate means to exclude people for legitimate reasons exists now under the collective agreement. They exist, and if they are not being enforced, they can go to arbitration, and if you lose at arbitration, then you can try and negotiate it with the bargaining unit. Those avenues failed for the government, and so they have chosen to act unilaterally. That's what betrays the anti-union bias in this legislation, and that's what we on this side of the House find so offensive.

HON. S.D. SMITH: As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) says, all those BCGEU employees in my riding are listening. I hope they are, because this process was first used in 1975.

The comments from the second member for Vancouver East would be outstanding but for the fact that I'm surprised he's unaware of the difference. I know his experience has been with the private sector, and in that situation with the private sector it's quite normal that the employer, the president of the company or whoever, tries to establish who is in and who is out. Then there is a battle from that point forward. Sometimes it is arbitrated, and sometimes it is successfully negotiated.

The difference here is that by the legislation, everyone is deemed in. That is not the case in the private sector. By the statute itself, everyone from Deputy Minister on is deemed in. That doesn't prevent your right to negotiating it out, but there is a substantial difference in the legislation and in the process. I don't think the member obviously was aware of that, given the tone of what he said.

MR. CLARK: Let me ask this then. Did the minister or the government attempt to negotiate? Did they communicate with the BCGEU their desire to have these 300 employees excluded from the bargaining unit?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I haven't got all of that at my fingertips, unfortunately. The Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael) isn't in the House. I read the part of the letter from the one group that I am familiar with — the group here. The legislative library staff — I believe there was an attempt made to negotiate them out, and it failed.

MR. CLARK: Did the Attorney-General communicate with the bargaining agent for those employees that this bill was coming in, and if so, when did they tell them?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The specific answer is that the Attorney-General did not communicate it. It's not my place to communicate it. The terms of the collective agreement with respect to notice was fulfilled.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I want to react also to some of the comments I heard from the second member for Vancouver East. He comments almost every chance he gets the floor to further the philosophical position that there should be a degree of politics involved in a whole host of initiatives. I am surprised that he hasn't grasped the significance of creating a Securities Commission. The whole point of creating the Securities Commission was to make it an independent body. That's the only way a Securities Commission can attain any respect or stature in the community it's trying to serve. That hon. member seems to be trying once again to link politics and political leadership with the functioning of a body that is by its very nature — by the act that created it — supposed to be independent.

The hon. member used the word "sensitive" a number of times, which I'm pleased to note, because it's true that they do deal with sensitive security issues. The possibility of significant implications to third parties, many of them innocent third parties....

A stock exchange, by its very nature, cannot be threatened by disruption or interference associated with labour unrest. It's a very dynamic institution; it's one that is highly volatile. It must have a quick ability to react and deal with issues that require attention. It's essential that there be continuous and uninterrupted control of events that unfold at that institution and in the industry. Investigations, once commenced must proceed as quickly as possible. Failure to complete an investigation that's in progress may result in the destruction of evidence or even in the subject leaving the country.

Firstly, it's absolutely imperative that we maintain its independence, contrary to the suggestion of the second member for Vancouver East that there should be a closer link with government. They should be more independent. Secondly, they must be able to provide continuous uninterrupted service. It's absolutely critical, when you're dealing with an industry as dynamic and volatile as that one, that that principle be established.

I'm astounded to hear the critic of financial affairs somehow once again trying to link the concept of political interference with the operation of what should be an independent commission. If the hon. member were to read the act that created the commission, he would have to concede that the whole purpose was to make it independent of political interference and control. It was to ensure there was a body structured in a way to deal quickly with the issues of the moment that occurred in that industry. I've taken much abuse from the same member in the last four months in which he attempted to pin responsibility for the operation of the commission on

[ Page 8826 ]

my shoulders. At the same time he seems to be ascribing to or alluding to my level of competence in terms of operating the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

You can't have it both way, Mr. Member. Here we are attempting to create an organization that is truly able to deal with the problems of the moment, and here you are standing up opposed to it. I sometimes wonder whether you want the Securities Commission to work more effectively or not. Do you really want to see it fail to do the job that it was created to do? Are you really serious when you talk about the fact that you want to see stronger and more frequent and constant enforcement? What position is hailed by your party in respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange? What are you really saying to the brokers and the hundreds involved in the industry, when on the one hand you criticize them incessantly for their performance or lack of it, and on the other hand, when we try to do something constructive to enhance their ability to provide the service and the monitoring that the industry really wants and are supportive of...? Why are you taking this position? It seems so self-evident to me.

I hope I've adequately responded to the comments of the second member.

MR. CLARK: I fail to see what having an independent Securities Commission has to do with whether or not they have the right to join a union. I fail to see what being involved in sensitive investigations has to do with having the right to join a union. Is the minister not aware that every police organization in British Columbia has its own union?

What he's saying — and this bespeaks their anti-union bias — is that union members can't be trusted to follow through an investigation. That's what he's saying. Where is the evidence, Mr. Chairman, that there are any problems in the Securities Commission now in terms of the trade union collective agreement? Where is the evidence that they raised this matter with the bargaining agent? None whatsoever, except an ingrained anti-union bias that is betrayed every time the members on that side open their mouths.

[5:30]

It is absolutely clear that the Securities Commission and regulators who are involved in sensitive investigations are more.... In my view, if anybody needs some protection, it is the people who are involved in regulating and stepping on toes and being tough with individuals in the community. They are vulnerable. In my view, they should have at least the option of joining a trade union. That option is removed by this section, and that's why we oppose it.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The second member for Vancouver East intimated that there is some kind of anti-union bias here that permeates this; the bias somehow visits itself exclusively on this side of the House, and the evidence of it is the fact that these exclusions have taken place without being negotiated — they've been done unilaterally.

I mentioned that in 1975 it was also done, and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) intimated that he wanted to know who might have been government at that time. I'm not exactly sure who was government at that time, but I could give him the date.

I've learned, if I may say so to the second member for Vancouver East, that sometimes I get into full voice before I've done the kind of diligent research that normally is done by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), from whom I'm sure you and I both can learn much. I would just point out to you that the first exclusions done under this legislation in relation to those who were taken out were done on July 5, 1975, Mr. Member for North Island, and they involved 50 members of the sheriff service, 26 members of the court administration...

MR. SIHOTA: Was that negotiated?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It was not negotiated; it was done by order.

...100 persons who were employed as justices of the peace — and that could be anyone, but if they had that designation they were excluded by this process — and 125 people qualified under the medical act, who were engaged in and working in the practice of their profession. On September 15, 1975, there were a further 93 so excluded. That was not done by negotiation; it was done by order. And that is a total of 394 persons who were done in 1975 by precisely the process that is being used here.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to talk about the Securities Commission or anything like that, but I can't resist the comment in passing that I know precisely why the Minister of Finance stood up and felt the need to talk about that, because in his worst nightmare he can see Murray the Pez as a shop steward, and he simply can't make that intellectual leap. This is the basis — obviously the only basis — for his complaints, because clearly there was no other logic resident in those remarks.

The Attorney and all those folks on the other side of the House love to tell us on this side that we are being alarmist whenever we suggest that measures emanating from that side have an anti-union or anti-organized-labour bias. We heard that again and again throughout that very long debate on Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Reform Act. We also heard the same refrain uttered ad nauseam in all the privatization debates, but the problem — to the Attorney-General and others — is that you continue to give us the evidence that leads us to no other conclusion than that you have that anti-union bias.

Let me remind you what we determined conclusively in the Bill 19 debate. We saw and we read into the record again and again that there was case law about one foot thick showing when the decision had gone against the government and therefore the government had drafted legislation specifically to get the courts to do, in effect, what they couldn't get them to do under the normal process.

[ Page 8827 ]

That is an abuse of power by government. That is using the government to do things that, left to their own devices, would not happen. So it is in this particular measure. In at least one instance, the instance referred to by my colleague from Vancouver East when we talked about the library workers, this process of getting those people out of the bargaining unit has gone to arbitration. It has been turned down. It was turned down by the Industrial Relations Council.

What other conclusion can we possibly draw then than that the government is saying: "We can't win it by the rules of the game; therefore we will use a different set of rules." You wonder, to the Attorney-General, why people don't have a lot of faith in that government and that government's vaunted claims about representing the interests of working people. Well, there is the case for you, Mr. Attorney.

We listened again and again to the government in the last week or so reading into the record its great triumphs, as they would have it — all the things they had done, suggesting, of course, that the world ought to be united in its love for the government. The point, however, as a number of us have made — and without being challenged, I might add — is that if you are doing such a great job, why is it they still don't like you?

I would offer precisely the same question, however rhetorically put, to these folks when you deal with the trade union movement. You wonder why the public sector workers don't like you? You wonder why working women and men are suspicious? You need look no further than this legislation. This is vindictive, this is punitive. This isn't good legislation. On principle, it ought to be withdrawn.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am having a voice in one ear saying, "Give it to them," and in another ear saying, "Please don't prolong this." So as I always do, I'll make up my own mind.

I think the point that the member for Nanaimo makes is a very good one and one for which, quite frankly, I have a considerable amount of sympathy The fact is that we in government — all of us who have been involved in any public body — change laws after courts have rendered opinions. We do it in relation to this process, and we do it in relation to taxation matters. We did it very recently in this Legislature, with the concurrence of most members in this House, in a major tax matter. I think you raise a very good point: we should do it with great care and very infrequently, because I believe that if you do it ad nauseam, without proper thought and deliberation, or capriciously, you will simply destroy the system we have.

I do want to make the point again that I do not think it fair or appropriate, although I know you believe what you say absolutely to be true, to characterize this in some partisan way as good guys and bad guys. I would remind you that this process, this legislation and this system have been used for some 14 years, and I suspect that the same kind of discussions, debate and agonizing decisions took place on July 5, 1975, as are taking place on July 20, 1989. I don't think the fact that it was done then made the people who did it bad guys, or that it was done in 1978 made them bad guys, or that it is being done today makes somebody else bad guys. I don't think bad guys and good guys enter into it. I think you have to make decisions about whether it's an appropriate thing for management to be able to ensure the independence of the agency that you're trying to do, and you'll have to carry the consequences of it, whoever does it. But I don't think it's right to characterize it as a partisan issue in the sense that you have.

MR. GABELMANN: The irony of this debate is that if there hadn't been an NDP government in 1972 to 1975, we would still have public servants without bargaining rights. It was this legislation after 20 years of Social Credit denying workers in the public service their bargaining rights that allowed for public sector workers in this province to come into the twentieth century and be allowed the right to bargain. You can bet that if there hadn't been a brief interregnum in what has been too many decades of Social Credit government, we would still not have full collective bargaining rights for public sector workers.

I want to remind the Attorney-General — he wasn't here — about some of the things that happened in the development of this legislation. First of all, there was a discussion about whether or not there should even be a separate Public Service Labour Relations Act. It was suggested public service workers should live under the Labour Relations Act — whatever they are of the day; the Labour Code of that time — rather than having a separate act. A compelling argument could be made for that.

Through negotiations and discussions between management — which was an arm of government — and the workers represented by the B.C. Government Employees' Union, which had previously been the B.C. Government Employees' Association, they reached an agreement that there should in fact be legislation, which eventually became the PSLRA.

In doing that, it was clear that there had to be some specific legislative requirement about exclusions. Deputy ministers weren't going to be in; others weren't going to be in. Those exclusions, which led to legislation not only in the first instance in 1973 — if my memory is correct — but also later in the amendments in 1975, were reached by negotiation and then enacted in this House.

The Attorney-General asserts that they were done arbitrarily then as now. Not so. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, discussions were held between the parties affected, agreements were reached, and where it was necessary to enact legislation to accomplish those agreements, legislation was enacted. And where it was appropriate to be in the collective agreement, it was in the collective agreement. That's the way sound labour-management relations should be conducted — not arbitrarily.

Can anyone in this House imagine MacMillan Bloedel one day saying to itself: "We can't manage

[ Page 8828 ]

our cut properly because the fallers are in the union.We're going to say the fallers no longer have the right to be in the union." M&B or any other employer in the private sector does not have the right to arbitrarily say such and such. group of people or such and such class of employee are no longer in the union, no longer have the right to be represented by the union and no longer have the right to have collective bargaining. No employer has those rights. Why should this employer have those rights? Why should this employer have rights that no other employers have?

Government has established agencies independent of government, independent of the employer — theoretically — to adjudicate matters that can't be resolved between the employer and the employee groups. But when it comes to its own employees, the government wants to have the right to be not only the employer but also the arbitrator. It is wrong in principle for the government to take powers that no other employer has when it comes to labour relations matters.

[5:45]

It would be absurd to suggest that any other employer could, by simply saying so, establish that certain people were no longer represented. That's what this employer has done, because as I understand it, these amendments are not as a result of negotiations between the parties. If the Attorney-General wants to tell me I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to sit down and the debate will be over. I ask the Attorney-General right now: are these clauses as a result of negotiations between the representative of these employees and the employer?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said earlier, the answer is no. But I want to put on the record.... I don't know whether the member recalls, but he clearly complains of these powers in this legislation. I don't have the expertise that he does in the area of labour management relations and negotiations, and it is not my legislation, so I'm not as familiar with it as I perhaps ought to be. But I must say to you, Mr. Member for North Island, these powers that we are using are the powers put in when the legislation was brought in, I believe in 1972 or '73. The powers have not been altered; they are the powers that were drafted into the legislation then.

The member referred as well to the process that went on, which I alluded to, on July 5, 1975, and September 15, 1975, when 394 people were excluded by this process. He said it was done by negotiated agreement. With the greatest of respect, it wasn't done by negotiated agreement. The Higgins commission of that time, together with members of the GEU — Mr. Fryer and others — came together and set up the bargaining process. They set up a system for the process of developing exclusions, and no doubt there was input about some of the exclusions. But it was not done by bargaining; it was done in the same way it has been done here. There has been input with respect to the exclusions. I just read into the record one of the letters from the individuals themselves. So it was not done as you intimate. I can't say whether there was more bargaining or less bargaining. Perhaps there was more bargaining.

I agree with you: you said there would not be this legislation had you not been elected in 1972; that you corrected something Social Credit hadn't dealt with for the previous 20 years. Obviously, if it hadn't been done within the previous years and it was something you brought in, the people who elected you considered it to be progressive legislation. That's the nature of government. You perhaps felt you were moving forward by bringing in legislation that granted government employees the right to bargain collectively, and that' s fair enough. But you did not bring in legislation to grant the same right to teachers. That had to wait a further almost 20 years, and that was brought in by a Social Credit government.

So again I reiterate that none of us can take ownership righteously, as being the exclusive vehicle by which all good things, in terms of collective bargaining, are done, and the other person does all bad things. That is not, in my view, appropriate to say. I want to put that because I think it's important.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to get into a long argument about history, but the minister is wrong. Unless he wants to hang his hat on a precise definition of the word "bargaining," there were in fact what I would describe as negotiations under the aegis of the Higgins commission, which had representatives on it formally from each of both parties. They sat down and worked it out. I would describe that as negotiating; you may want to describe it as discussing, talking or a bunch of other words.

It wasn't formal contract bargaining, agreed, but it was a process of discussion which led to resolution, which is what should happen here. There has been no one yet on the government side who has stood up and said that there have been discussions between the parties that have led to these conclusions. That has not happened.

The Industrial Relations Act and the Labour Code before it very clearly establish what kinds of employees would be excluded from bargaining unit. They list them: employees who exercise the functions of a manager or superintendent in the direction or control of employees, and a person who is employed in a confidential, planning or advisory position; a person who is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or personnel.

Those are the exclusions in the private sector. They are reasonable — confidential capacity in personnel or labour relations, managers, people acting as supervisors, although in fact not all supervisors are excluded. I think of the longshore industry as an example where that's not the case. But in the public service we don't have three categories of exclusion; we have a whole page, from (a) to (x), of exclusions, and now we are adding some more. Because we are running out of letters in the alphabet, we now have to have (aa). We have to have (z) and then (aa) and (bb). What does that total — 30 groups of exclusions? Not a set of exclusions in principle saying deputy minis-

[ Page 8829 ]

ters or managers who have the right to hire and fire, or managers who have labour relations responsibility, or confidential secretaries — none of those kinds of descriptions. What we have is a whole series of exclusions by department, by category of employee, not to do with fundamental reasons, not to do with the fundamental purposes of exclusions, but with something far greater than that, which is to deal with — and I hate to be political in this chamber; I know we shouldn't be — the issue raised by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). What we have had over the years, since many of these exclusions have been added bit by bit, is an underlying bias on the part of the government that somehow...

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Listen to this carefully, because it's true.

...some employees in some parts of government who may belong to a union will somehow, in the government's mind, have a higher loyalty and a higher obligation to the union than they to their employer. That's what underlies this series of amendments. The Attorney-General can shake his head, but there is a fundamental view, and the Finance minister, whether he realized it or not, has expressed it clearly. It's a fundamental view that somehow these employees will not be true to their employer, will not keep confidences, will not be able to be managed effectively and will not agree to work the different shifts that might be required.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The Attorney-General says it's not fair and it's not right. Then why are we excluding the library staff? The government tried to do it a couple of years ago. They failed. An arbitration was fought over the matter. The library staff won the right to retain their membership in the BCGEU and to be represented. The government lost the arbitration, as I said. They appealed that arbitration to the old Labour Relations Board, which was then in transition to the new Industrial Relations Council; it was rejected. The workers in that particular section of government service were allowed to retain the right that they wanted, which was to be represented by a union for collective bargaining purposes.

So what purpose does the government have? Does it feel that the library staff somehow has to be out because they're doing confidential work for members of the Legislature, and that this confidential work somehow might get relayed to the BCGEU in Vancouver because these workers can't be trusted; that their higher loyalty is to the union rather than to their oath of office? That's what comes through, and it comes through repeatedly.

The Minister of Finance went on talking about how somehow the securities office had to be independent. So too does every agency of government have to be independent. The member for Vancouver East talked about the police; they have to be independent. The courts in general and all kinds of agencies of government have to be independent. All kinds of public servants, however they're employed by the public, have to be independent. But they sure as hell have the right to be represented and bargained for collectively. You don't lose your independence simply because you decide you want your wages and security packages to be negotiated collectively rather than singly. That doesn't compromise your independence.

There hasn't yet been an argument expressed that I've heard that justifies this section. I don't mind saying that some of us have suggested to the government before today that this section should not proceed. If these exclusions are appropriate, if they're desired by the employees, if there are compelling arguments of confidentiality or security that can be made, those can be resolved in negotiations with these employees and their representatives. The Legislature will sit again next year, and amendments that reflect those discussions can be brought in. This legislation should not pass at this time.

MR. B.R. SMITH: It's a very dangerous precedent to have speeches based on principle in this chamber and reasoned with logic at the eleventh hour of the sitting. I think the only exclusions the House is able to entertain at this hour are probably the people who are going to speak further on this bill, because the time and energy have really gone from debating this.

These are very pragmatic changes. I don't think anyone opposite could argue that a clerical assistant, secretary or registrar of a judge shouldn't be excluded from the bargaining unit. Indeed, it was only about four or five years ago that we had picketing at the courthouse in Vancouver. It might very well be, hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), that a lawful picket line could be erected in Vancouver and there could be intimidation or violence on that picket line; and in having that adjudicated before a judge, you couldn't have a decision or a hearing, because he wouldn't have clerical support.

I have no problem with any of these as pragmatic amendments. I think they're all supportable as pragmatic amendments. So is the Assessment Appeal Board one.

What should happen with this act is that it should be cleaned up and dealt with in categories instead of in endless lists, and that should be done in the future, not in the dying days of the session. I would hope that in the next session we could address the act in principle, and exclude anyone who works in a judicial or confidential capacity, and so on, instead of adding them piecemeal every session. The flaws in that have been on both sides of this chamber and it's not the time for high speeches on principles; it's time to have the vote and pass the bill.

[6:00]

MR. CLARK: I know there are other members of caucus who may want to speak on this, and I just want to preserve that place if they choose to do that.

[ Page 8830 ]

Beyond that, I simply want to emphasize again the ability of the government to achieve their ends through negotiation, as an option which should have been pursued. Even if one accepted the government's philosophical bent, you at least could argue that negotiated settlement is worth trying before a unilateral decision to bring it before the House. It does appear that that's been the case, at least on many of these sections — it's been the case on a couple of them, I gather, but not on all of them. That is my greatest concern. It's not specific merits of specific clauses; it's the process the government undertook to unilaterally remove people — and remove their rights, for that matter — without so much as consultation with their bargaining units, not even the courtesy of informing the bargaining agent before, or at least giving some advance warning that this was about to happen.

MR. G. HANSON: I would like to say a few words on this because I can recall firsthand some of those early days when collective bargaining was established for public employees. I was a government employee; I was involved in the process. During this period of time, I came to know what some other progressive jurisdictions do in labour relations.

I guess what I want to say to the Attorney-General is that when you look at other jurisdictions, such as Scandinavia.... He used examples of progressive measures that come in periodically to assist working people and give them rights, and the granting of collective bargaining rights to public employees in the early seventies and teachers subsequently obtaining bargaining rights, and so on. In Sweden virtually everybody belongs to a union, professionals belong to a union, and you don't have the idea that somehow the exclusion level has to be way down deep in the bargaining unit; somehow people can be trusted all the way up. In my experience, anyone who takes the oath of office as a public employee takes it seriously. Their allegiance to their bargaining unit is something quite separate in terms of their wages and working conditions and so on. But they take an oath of office to not violate that oath of office as government employees, and they take it seriously. For that argument ever to find its way into this discussion I find extremely troubling.

I'd like the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter. As the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) said, we are in the dying moments, or hours or days, of this session. We know that the bureaucracy generates a wish list. It generates a shopping list of things it asks a minister to provide We're at the bottom somehow of your shopping list in this miscellaneous statutes bill. I think it would be prudent, and it would be an acknowledgment of the differences of opinion around this matter, to stand this down. There is no pressing urgency to exclude these people from the bargaining unit. Stand it down. Make the changes that were requested in terms of specifically identifying categories that you feel could be justified; bring that forward in the next session, and we'll deal with it as a matter before the House. But to bring this as a part of that shopping list that you're obliged to somehow provide to the bureaucracy, I don't think that's required. As an important gesture of doing constructive business in this House, in the time between now and the next session, look at Sweden. Look at other progressive jurisdictions in labour relations within the public sector and see how they do these things and where those exclusionary levels are. That's worth a little thought. I'd really like the minister to consider that, and I think he's partway there already.

We do have other matters to discuss after we move on from this, and the L-G is hovering 1,000 feet above this building waiting to proclaim the bills that we've worked on. I wonder if the minister would give consideration to standing this down and bringing it back in a more refined form with some rigorous definitions of who would be excluded and why, and we can deal with it at that time.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I agree entirely with the member with respect to the notion of loyalty, and I'm glad he raised it. I too find a certain odium about the proposition that employees in one organized form are somehow less loyal than others. I just don't accept that, and it's what I was referring to earlier that I thought was unfair. It isn't a matter that those who are in the collective bargaining unit are loyal and those who aren't are disloyal, or vice versa. It's simply a matter, as I said right at the outset, of the notion of independence and the question that there are occasions when the obligation for which you have contracted may very well put you in a position where you cannot do your duty to the office you serve and your duty to the contract under which you operate. There's nothing sinister about that. All of us, I think, from time to time have visited that kind of a problem.

On the business of whether we should do it by way of a broad exclusionary category, I've looked at that as well, and I'm not so sure you would find that any more appealing. In fact, I suspect you might find that less appealing than doing it by specific exclusions by number, almost, and by specific people. You're hoist on your own petard to name names, as it were, in terms of those who are bringing forward the exclusion. If you did it by category, I think you would have that age-old opportunity for discretion, which might result in more rather than fewer. If you thought about that, first member for Victoria, I'm not sure you would really want that.

I and all of us who have discussed this in terms of those areas which might benefit from exclusion.... As I said at the outset, there were some in my own area which I looked at and came to the conclusion that perhaps it wasn't necessary for them to go forward, even though their colleagues, in some senses, have been put in that category.

I have given consideration to your request earlier, before you even made it; it was made by others. I really can't accede to it.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a certain number of exclusions that are required to

[ Page 8831 ]

make collective bargaining work, and that should be the assumption. But beyond that, to keep demanding large numbers of exclusions is rolling collective bargaining back, really without justification. We don't see the justification for a large number of these categories. That's why we're having this discussion. You really would be serving this House well to stand it down, go over it again, refine it and bring it back in the next session. Would you consider doing that?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I know you don't see the justification for it. Sadly, I obviously have been a great failure today in not being able to persuade you of the justifications that have been presented. I will do my best to improve between now and the next session; but no, I can't commit to stand it down.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: Most of the discussion so far has been in principle about the process that has led to this legislation. Just to very quickly summarize it, we essentially said it should be negotiated and then the agreement that's reached should be enacted. The government has said no, they have the arbitrary right to exclude whoever they want. We've had that debate, and we disagree.

Let me pursue one element of this particular clause, the question of the library. I just want to pursue that a little bit more because I am more familiar with that one and I think I know the history a little bit better in that one than I do in each of the others.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General should really justify to the House why the expressed wishes of this group of employees would be disregarded, why there would be an effort to overturn the results of an arbitration board and subsequent approval of that board decision by the IRC.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

What are the reasons? Are these library staff going to given the right to hire and fire? What kind of security might be involved? What kind of personnel labour relations matters are they involved in that require their exclusion from collective bargaining? I wonder if the minister and I might just exchange some ideas about this.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The members of the library staff are frankly divided — I think substantially — on this matter, and I would concede that that is the case. I would also concede, however, that those persons charged with the duty to bargain collectively for all of the members have stated clearly that they ought not to be excluded.

It should be noted, though, that the arbitration decision was not one, as I recollect, that said they could not be excluded. It was one that said that the process for exclusion was improperly done. I believe that was the nuts of the decision.

The MacMinn report that was done with respect to matters relating to this assembly recommended, and there are reasons set out there, that that exclusion occur. The Speaker's office itself has made that recommendation. These individuals are the only ones, I believe, under the authority of the Speaker, who are not excluded. The rationale for that is again the independence of this chamber from any obligation — I think I earlier used the word "influence, " and that word was probably wrong — that may be found under any instrument such as a contract.

I would also point out to the member that in seven other provinces, this is the case. That ought not to drive our decision. I recognize that; we should do what's in our interests. It's not unique to British Columbia with respect to the library staff, and we would be the eighth of ten provinces. I am not sure of the situation with regard to Canada. The opposition House Leader may be able to enlighten me, but certainly with respect to the provinces we would not be unique.

That isn't the end of the issue, I grant you, but I just give you that information.

MR. GABELMANN: I can tell the Attorney-General that in Ottawa the great debate rages because of the policy of the House of Commons to deny trade union rights to its employees. The House of Commons in Ottawa has a massive staff — far greater than anything we envision. There is a great debate about that, and several unions are in there organizing.

At least one of the parliamentary caucuses now has a union and a collective agreement in Ottawa, and I know that some of the employees on the hill in Ottawa are now in the process of trying to establish their right to organize a union, because they have chosen by a majority decision that's what they want to do.

[6:15]

The Attorney-General suggests that because the report by the Clerk recommended this — he suggested that was the case — one of the recommendations was the Speaker's staff should not be unionized, in effect. I don't recall seeing that, but I'll take the minister's word for it. The minister also suggested that the Speaker himself, as the employer in this instance, requested that this happen.

Mr. Chairman, we can name countless employers around the province who would love to be able to say that their employees shouldn't be in a union. Many employers would love to be able to do that. just because an employer doesn't want some of his employees to be in the union doesn't mean that should happen. I really don't understand the logic of it.

The minister has answered in a sense and given some reasons, but he hasn't given any basic philosophical or fundamental reasons why this group.... I don't know how many there are — 30 or so employees in the library who are affected by this clause. What is it that they do every day for us that is impeded by the fact that they might bargain collectively rather than individually? What is it they do that would be impeded, affected or negatively impacted by the fact that a collective agreement is in

[ Page 8832 ]

place and that they're represented collectively rather than individually?

I don't have any problem that my secretary is a member of a union and has a collective agreement; no problem at all. Why can't our library workers have the same rights?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If I understand the member correctly, I frankly don't have any problem with that either. It is not the fact of being represented collectively or being represented individually — which model you use — that is at issue. I think the issue is the consequence of an individual having that obligation by way of contract as well as having the duty to the presumed independence of this place. We all use that library fairly extensively for purposes of research and information to do our duty to the House, and I think it ought not to be impeded, in the same way that the people in the courts ought not to have to have some resolution to make between their duty to the courts and their obligation to their contract. This, after all, is the highest court in the province, and I think the principles that apply in the Supreme Court would apply equally to this place.

MR. GABELMANN: I've been using the library, with a brief interruption, since 1972. I have never on one occasion had a problem. In fact, I should put it positively: I have had wonderful support and cooperation from the library staff. It is an outstanding staff; they do incredibly good work and are faithful in their obligations to all members. I know of no example, in my nearly 14 years in this place, where a single element of the collective agreement has impeded any member of this House — not once. I know of no example where there has been any impediment, any problem or anything. One of the things that happens when we sit long hours — and on occasion we've sat very long hours in this chamber — is that we have our library staff here. They stay in their offices in the library when we're here in this chamber, and there has been an occasion when they've been here all night. The collective agreement hasn't prevented the administration of the library from ensuring that the library staff has been here.

I say this sincerely. Earlier I engaged in some partisan philosophical debate about principles, and that's fair enough. We had that debate, and we disagreed. I'm not doing that now; I'm doing something else. I'm appealing to the Attorney-General to do one of two things: either to explain to this House what it is about union representation, the collective agreement of the library workers, that is a problem for the service of this House by the library; or, if he can't do that, then alternatively we can by agreement simply delete that section from this clause. I ask the Attorney-General if he can do one or the other.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I can't do the other, so I'll try to do the one — which is to explain, if not to get your agreement at least to get your understanding, that it is reasonable and that there is a rationale. It is not, as I said, the union representation per se; that was not the case with respect to the courts. I agree entirely with you that there has not been a situation where, as I understand it, there has been a disruption while the House has been sitting or, for that matter, at any other time. You're quite right. The staff are absolutely loyal to their duty, to this place and to its members, without exception and without fail. But let me analogize with the courts, because I think it's the easiest thing to do. This is the highest court in the province, and the principle I articulated earlier with respect to the courts applies equally here. It is the case that you have a duty to the House, and I think we have a duty to have the House open at all times. We want it to be open and have all of it open and all of its services available to members any time that it is open. So it is the case that it is possible, as it has been demonstrated in the courts, for there to be a contest between one's duty to the House and one's obligation under contract.

That is the underpinning rationale for this decision. I would reiterate that there's no question that one ought to with great care weigh any of these kinds of exclusions to make sure that each is one is justifiable both in principle and in fact. I think that is the case here.

I think it is also important to note that under the current arrangement the Speaker's staff and the library component of that, by virtue of the contractual relationship between the Crown and the GEU, de facto is under the control of the executive council, because it is the executive council that enters into those agreements and that does the bargaining and agrees to the terms and conditions of that contract. The exclusion that is contemplated, I would suggest to the members, would mean that the arrangements with respect to the staff would move away from that part of government and move more fully thereby under the control of this Legislature. I think that would be a desirable thing.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to make another comment on that particular point. The minister is technically correct about the employer, as it were: it's not the executive council; it's the Legislature. That doesn't mean that the collective agreement between the BCGEU and the executive council cannot also by agreement have included in it an arrangement between the BCGEU and the House. That can be done by negotiation; that can be done through collective bargaining. There's no reason why, for this group of employees, the Speaker on behalf of the House cannot be named the employer — or whatever the technical language would be. That won't quite be it, but there's a way of doing it through the process that would prevent this exclusion.

We've had this situation for years, so it's not as if something is going to stand or fall on doing this immediately. I would suggest that we leave this out for the period of time until this House sits again, which will give the parties an ability to make an arrangement to clean up any of the legal impediments that may or may not occur, and so that we can get a resolution to this, so these employees are not denied

[ Page 8833 ]

the rights which I think are guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights, among other rights.

MR. ROSE: Just a little explanation here — a clarification. On page 33 of the standing orders it says: "The legislative librarian shall maintain a catalogue...and shall file an annual report to the House, through Mr. Speaker, as soon as practicable...." It would seem to me that the librarian or the library is not directly under the executive council. I don't imagine that is a particularly big point, and I'm not putting it forward as such. But we seem to be hung up here on what I regard as.... I suppose we're at loggerheads over this one issue.

I spent a long time in Ottawa attempting to get reasonable rights for people who are employed in the House of Commons, including the library. Now in answer to the member: no, they're not members of any particular collective bargaining unit in the federal House in Ottawa. But it would seem to me that if this things flows from the MacMinn report and we are at an impasse — and we are, and there is no reason for it, really — then I don't think we damage anything very much by standing the section that deals with the library, that particular clause (bb), provided the Speaker and the person who wrote the report have no objection. Perhaps within the next four or five months another kind of arrangement could be worked out.

It doesn't seem to me to be a large crumb to send to the opposition in terms of their very serious concerns about this. We didn't ask for this, but we are hung up on this thing. It is, I suppose, a philosophical impasse at this moment. It does not mean that it couldn't be done and debated thoroughly at another juncture.

While I don't intend to grovel, I do appeal to the Attorney-General's better nature, if I can find it this evening, to see if that could not be a reasonable kind of compromise on the kind of thing we're up against at the moment. I just think it's stupid for us to be digging our heels in at this particular late hour on a subject that could be handled some other time in a much more enlightened spirit than we are doing it in right now.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I certainly wouldn't want to leave the impression with anyone, let alone people outside this House, that somehow the process here is that we throw some crumbs or something around. I don't think that is the case.

[6:30]

The decision to proceed with these exclusions, as I've tried to lay out, is one that has gone on for 14 years in this chamber, beginning with a similar process in July 1975 — the same process, in fact. I think, as we have said throughout and has been commended to me by members opposite, you do this in the face of not having achieved it by formal bargaining — certainly in some instances by way of discussion, as has been done in the past. You do it as well by making a decision with great care, because you are in fact changing the rights and indeed, to some extent I suppose, the responsibilities, particularly the responsibilities of members of the unit, in the sense of their responsibility to their contract. You must do that with great care. I have to tell members opposite that in fact all of those indicia of decision have now been undertaken to get to this point.

The opposition House Leader says: "Well, we didn't ask for that." I appreciate that. It's not usually the case that the opposition — with the greatest of respect — does ask for legislation that is introduced. I have also said that there were other areas of government and agencies of government that were looked at, and the decision was taken that the indicia were not there and so they weren't brought forward. I suppose if we wanted to be cutesy, we could have brought in something knowing that it was going to be a giveaway and then kind of bargain it away. I don't think that's the way it should be done.

Interjections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, I don't think that is the way it should be done. I agree very much with the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) on this issue. It is very important. It's perhaps the most difficult kind of thing of all that you have to do in the area of your management responsibilities. So you ought to do it damn carefully, know what you're doing and have good reasons for doing it. I can understand why people are suspicious and so on; we've gone through all that. But I truly believe that that has been done, and while they may not be acceptable, reasons that are not in any way capricious or flawed have been advanced in support of doing what is proposed.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's unfortunate that the government, through the Attorney-General, has been putting specious arguments forward about why these various groups should be excluded. The basic argument we get is independence; it's an agency of the Speaker and therefore needs to be independent, or it's the office of the superintendent of financial institutions or the new Securities Commission under the Securities Act or the Assessment Appeal Board. If you carry that argument through to its logical conclusion, you're basically saying that the people involved in any Crown corporation should not be allowed to make a decision about joining a union; that the employees of any independent body, whether federal, provincial or municipal, should not have the right as citizens to decide whether or not to belong to a union.

What you can't do in a big way, which is smash all of those rights of citizens, you're now chipping away at with 32 different categories. What you couldn't get through arbitration, what you couldn't get through difficult negotiations and three years of negotiations for a collective agreement, you're now chipping away unilaterally through this Legislature. I would like to

[ Page 8834 ]

know what the pragmatism is, as I heard from one of the members over there. What is the overwhelming necessity to exclude from collective bargaining the office of information technology or the office of the superintendent of financial institutions or the Assessment Appeal Board?

Quite simply, what we have here is, as we said at the beginning, an attitudinal problem with this government. It is anti workers having the right to make a decision about whether they should belong to a trade union or not. As was demonstrated by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), you don't trust the good people who work for the public sector. You can't trust them to do their duty to the citizens of British Columbia. What's behind this is a lack of trust of fellow citizens here in British Columbia who want to be of service to their citizens by being public employees.

The Attorney-General is trying to represent the government in this attempt at taking away these rights of workers that they couldn't gain through arbitration, through the collective bargaining process. We've tried to get across to you in the last minutes of this session that what you're doing is wrong, and to give you a chance, at least with the library, to exclude it and have a look at it and come back with a better way. We've suggested through our House Leader that we could do that through the Board of Internal Economy. We could do it through one of our legislative committees. There is no urgency. The House won't be sitting — we don't think — until next February or March; we haven't heard of a session in the fall.

Quite frankly, we have never had a work stoppage in the library. If we did, it would be good for the members of this Legislature to go back and rethink the Dewey decimal system and get their own books on occasion — those who do like to use the library and do like to read. It may be a good idea for the members to go back and brush up their skills; go back and learn something about libraries.

This is a theoretical problem. We have never had a problem in the Legislative Library. Quite frankly, we don't think that what the Attorney-General has said does justify the actions that are being taken there. So we again urge the government to stand down these items — at least the office of the Legislative Library.

As a matter of fact, if there were this theoretical strike or lockout — which has never happened in this Legislature's history — what might happen is that some of the members of this Legislative Assembly might actually have to go and use a public library, for God's sake.

I would hope that even though we don't see the justification for the vast majority of these, we would have the ability to at least take a fresh look at the office of the Legislative Library being stood down and we could get on with completing the business of this Legislative Assembly in this session.

Section 28 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 14

Sections 29 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[6:45]

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 90, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 92.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) not available to answer the questions on fisheries? The custom in the House on a miscellaneous statutes act is not to debate the principle of any changes in second reading, because clearly the bill is an amalgam of a number of changes. Now we have amendments to legislation under the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and no one here to respond on these amendments. We had a discussion in question period today, or questions raised, about matters that may impact on 5,000 jobs in British Columbia, and nobody here to talk about it.

[ Page 8835 ]

We want to know specifically what these amendments will do to ensure that processing is done in British Columbia, and that salmon and herring will not be trucked or barged or bought off over the side and taken to Blaine or Taiwan and processed there. We want to know how this government is protecting the resources that we have here.

We see that some additional powers are granted here, but they're not specific. They don't say what establishments are included under the licensing. What specific language of the licences will ensure that the processing is done here in British Columbia? These are questions that people of this province want answered.

In Washington State, under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Governor has the authority to set regulations around licences to exclude any right to export fish if the capacity of the processing industry is not completely filled. Obviously that provision ensures that they don't have job loss in Washington State, so that can't be in contradiction to the GATT regulations. If it's good enough for our friends in Washington State to protect their fishery and have that authorized by GATT, then certainly it's good enough for British Columbia to have that kind of regulation and have it within the GATT guidelines.

I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can tell me specifically in what ways sections 6 to 13 protect the fish-processing industry in the province.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the sections simply enable us to provide for the establishment of fish-buying stations and the like, in order to implement the provisions that flow from the recent GATT decision. I think the member, in his discussion about the exclusion of any fish going out.... I had this discussion earlier with the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to exclusion of certain products from the forests as well. You have to be a little bit careful about blanket exclusions. We have members of the fishery here who for a good long time have been selling fish directly out of the Prince Rupert area to Alaska processors. Indeed, that is how we got to where we are today.

So I think you ought to be careful about blanket exclusions, just as when it is suggested to me sometimes that we should ban log exports from British Columbia. That has great visceral appeal, but I want you to know that the plywood plant at Savona in the constituency of Kamloops operates from veneer imported from Portland. If you go with blanket restrictions on these commodities, don't forget that it's a two-way street.

MR. G. HANSON: Can the minister tell me if a buying-station can be a truck or a barge?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It can't be a truck and it cannot be a barge.

MR. G. HANSON: Are there regulations here that will determine who will be entitled to have a licence?

In other words, can an offshore buyer get a licence for a buying-station? Are these exclusively for Canadian citizens, or could it be an American, Taiwanese, South Korean or Japanese? Who can get a licence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the first member for Victoria please repeat the question.

MR. G. HANSON: Who is entitled to get a licence? Who is not entitled to get a licence? In other words, can a non-Canadian national get a licence? Could an American have a buying-station licence? Can a Taiwanese or Japanese national be a holder of a buying licence?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Remember that the buying-station is a locale. I think what you're trying to get to is: how much of the buying is done in the locale, and hopefully how much of the eviscerating is also done in the locale? I don't know of any restrictions in Canada on who can own shares, for instance, of a company in this province. I don't know of any restrictions on who can own shares of a corporate entity, as long as it's in the province of British Columbia. I stand to be corrected, but I can't think of any that are around, nor can I think of any restrictions on who can own land. I think the point you're trying to get at is: under this process of licensing fish-buying stations, is it open for a foreign vessel on the high seas to do it? The answer is no.

MR. G. HANSON: Let me ask another question. Is it possible then for a very large trading company such as Marubeni or Mitsubishi of Japan to take out licences up and down the coast and essentially buy all the fish?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The only one we can licence under this regime is a British Columbia company. I don't know whether or not those companies you're referring to are British Columbia companies.

MR. G. HANSON: The companies are among the largest trading companies in the world — Japanese-owned and -controlled. I presume some of them are situated here in British Columbia, because they're doing business here.

What I'm getting at is the Canadian content in the processing industry. Can the minister tell me what provisions in these regulations will guarantee that herring and salmon will be processed in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH: That was the subject of the GATT hearing, and the short answer to that is that GATT has prohibited putting that kind of site-specific regime in place. That was the effect of the decision.

What we are entitled to do in British Columbia, in my view and in others', is protect the stock of fish in terms of conservation; secondly, ensure health standards; and thirdly — this is a very important and emerging area, and I believe it has not yet been adjudicated on by the GATT — protect the value of

[ Page 8836 ]

something called "B.C. fish." In other words, it's the label or perhaps the value of the trademark. I'm using "trademark" improperly here, because that has a particular meaning. It is the value of the trading identification. In order for you to do that, we think you're entitled — within the rubric of GATT and consistent with GATT — to set up a process of buying and eviscerating, if you like, and landing and marketing that is GATT-consistent, but is capable of allowing you to protect those matters within the fishery that are not prohibited by GATT.

As you know, the one thing that is prohibited by GATT is for you to say: "We are going to specifically protect work in that plant, and we are going to force you to bring fish to that plant." We got to know that because fish used to go up to Alaska from British Columbia, and then vice versa, from Alaska down into British Columbia. Then when the Americans wanted to do it on the other end, there was no prohibition placed against that, and that's what the GATT has ruled on.

What is legitimate within the GATT....

MR. JONES: You don't know the answer.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think you'll find I know it perhaps better than you think, as it is now coming back to me. What is consistent within the GATT is: (1) measures respecting conservation; (2) measures respecting health; (3) measures respecting the environment; and (4) an area of emerging importance, measures respecting the label under which you sell.

You can think of a lot of examples of why that's emerging. For instance, Sunkist is a well-known label all around the world: one bad batch and goodbye to the value of the label. You can think of other situations where it would be legitimate for us and for British Columbia to have provisions to protect that label. After all, British Columbia pioneered the marketing of Pacific salmon around the world, and invented the processes by which that is done. That's what these matters are intended to do, and to do it in a way that keeps it GATT-consistent.

[7:00]

MR. G. HANSON: It would be all well and good if we didn't have the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act on the American side that empowers a Governor to utilize the full processing capacity of Washington State. Why is that not challenged by GATT? The province of British Columbia has the right to issue the buying and the processing permits for fish; that's within the provincial domain.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: If I can get the minister's attention.

The buying and the processing permits are issued provincially. Regulations can be enacted to take into account those environmental, health and conservation matters.

What we're concerned about is that we don't seem to be fighting for our resources. We seem to be rolling over and going the extra mile, whereas in Washington State they have authority to ensure that their processing is at full capacity and that no exports of raw American territorial fish, no applications, are contemplated if their own processing capacity is not in place. I'm disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries is not here to explain it to this House and that it's the Attorney-General, who's landlocked in the Kamloops area — a freshwater man, primarily, and we're talking saltwater.... I can appreciate the difficulties he's having.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all swim.

MR. G. HANSON: They swim, but they swim a lot farther down here.

MR. LOVICK: He's got a lot of gills, to say that.

MR. G. HANSON: The problem is that we're faced with a very major potential job loss with one of the largest industries, a multimillion dollar payroll. The stability of communities up and down this coast, with women workers, with native workers, a unionized workforce.... It's seasonal but it pays well and offers stability. And here we are faced, in the dying moments of the session, with trying to get answers from a freshwater minister when we really need a saltwater man. He's primarily agriculture — dirt. We need a good saltwater person to talk to. I don't think we're going to get the answers we need.

We need regulatory provisions to ensure that the world-class resource we have in our salmon and our herring, which will be in increasingly greater demand in Asia and worldwide, as population increases.... We have a world-class product, and we're fearful that those processing jobs...that people will find loopholes, and will buy and truck our salmon and our herring and the roe fishery across the border, either to be processed in Blaine and Bellingham or to go offshore to be processed in Singapore and Taiwan and South Korea.

These are not frivolous questions. These are important questions. They are on the minds of thousands of workers in this province and on the east coast of our country. These are questions that need important action to protect this industry. You don't have to be in violation of international trading agreements. All you have to be is tough enough to make sure you bargain and get the best deal possible for this province. The impression is — and unfortunately I think it's true — that federally we have rolled over and said "yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir," and we're about to do it provincially. Once those jobs and that industry are gone from this coast, they will be gone.

The market offshore in Asia and in Europe is insatiable for our world-class products. And the jobs. When you walk through the supermarkets of British Columbia and look on the shelves at the canning labels, what do you find? Singapore, Taiwan, Hong

[ Page 8837 ]

Kong, South Korea. A lot of that product is Canadian fish, British Columbia fish; it's from our territorial waters. That flash freezing, that eviscerating, that jarring, that smoking, that processing, that value-added to this precious resource should be done in our province. That's what this discussion is about in the absence of the minister, having to get explanations from a person standing in who is trying to do his best in the twilight of this session.

What guarantees are there? Are you prepared to say, on behalf of the government, that no processing of our herring and our salmon will go offshore?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, of course not. The member seems to be making a lot of the Magnuson Act with respect to his arguments about onshore processing. The Magnuson Act, with the greatest respect, deals with fish on the high seas, with boats; it does not deal with onshore fish plants, which in the U.S. can in fact export from Washington State into Canada. Fish that is landed there can be moved up to Canada, moved to Japan, to Taiwan or anywhere else they want. So I don't think your conclusions are quite right.

Those of us who are landlocked have some sensitivity to the salmon, too, I can tell you. We have the greatest sockeye salmon run in the world.

MR. LOVICK: Another chamber of commerce statement.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The greatest sockeye salmon run in the world lives it first year in Kamloops Lake, my friend. So we have some sensitivity to the issue and understand its importance.

Living as we do in a world market, where all the pressures you have so well articulated are extant, there's no question that it is open to people who own companies, who are Canadians and who are British Columbians, to go and sell their products hither and yon. They do that and have done that for years and years. We are sensitive to that, and we have been working our butts off to do what we can to protect the parts of that fishery we can protect within the framework of the GATT agreement, which as Canadians we have signed and benefited from. What we can do is protect ourselves with respect to conservation the environment, health measures and marketing that great label "B.C. salmon — B.C. fish." We will do that, and we are doing that by establishing the very processes you see here: a system of buying-stations, places to which you can bring them and process.... That's what we're doing, and we think it's GATT-consistent. We think it's something that moves towards protecting the very fishery that you, I and everyone else in this chamber wants protected.

But, Mr. Member, you cannot, under the GATT rules and the law of this land, which we have entered into, say that I am going to bring in a law that says you must process that entity in this location. That, sir, is against the laws which Canada has subscribed to, which we have endorsed and from which we benefit.

We all sometimes submit to the temptation to want to put up the fence and keep everyone else out.

Appealing as that is, we can't do it and protect the jobs and the fishery that we all want to protect. But by doing it this way, by going out and establishing a system that is consistent with international law, and that allows us to protect the fish through conservation, environment, health and marketing measures, we think we can achieve the same purpose, and that's what this legislation is doing.

MR. G. HANSON: The Attorney-General can bluff his way through this as the stand-in minister on this subject, but the fact remains.... I realize the limitations in terms of the quality of information I am going to get. That's not an aspersion. You have a different portfolio, a different background and a different experience. You don't have the database, and we don't have a deputy minister in charge of fisheries sitting behind you to give you the answers. What we have are Social Credit MLAs trying to bluff their way through this bill.

The point I am going to make is that this very important sector of our economy, and the jobs that are derived there from.... If those fish are barged or trucked, if they are bought over the side and barged to Blaine or Bellingham and we lose those jobs, that will be on your head.

Sections 6 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It seems that this section gives the minister some clout he tried to achieve with Bills 74 and 84, where he was virtually given a shovel and told to get the money off the back of the truck. We know what kind of response that received, even from the most conservative element in this province.

I would like to ask the minister a few simple questions about the loans, in terms of conditions the minister sees as appropriate. Is there some protection built into this act, whereby in fact, even though he may have the expertise and be the minister and be in fact responsible — and I'm sure he is — some review may be given to his actions?

Sections 14 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. JONES: I just want to ask the Minister of Health the purpose of this legislation. As I understand it, this section of this important bill, brought in at this time in the Legislature, when I know my colleagues on this side and colleagues on that side are anxious to leave this chamber.... I know that every piece of this particular bill is here for an important reason. But as I understand this particular section, section 19, it does not do anything to change the status quo. So I'd like to ask the minister why this particular section has been brought in.

[7:15]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Housekeeping.

[ Page 8838 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: Correct. Housekeeping.

I should add, Mr. Chairman, that up to this point in time any overruns came from consolidated revenue. We're now saying that it should come from the Legislature, or if the Legislature is not sitting, a special warrant, so that it's identified the same as any other overruns in any other ministry.

MR. JONES: That was exactly my point, Mr. Chairman. There doesn't appear to be any rationale for this coming in, inasmuch as this does exactly what is current practice. I'd like to ask the minister if there was consultation with the BCMA prior to bringing in this particular amendment.

HON. MR. DUECK: The BCMA has been told about this, and the executive director of the BCMA was quite pleased that it meant what we thought it meant.

MR. JONES: The minister said that the BCMA was told about this. It sounds like they were given a fait accompli. I don't consider that consultation; and when the province is in very sensitive and delicate negotiations with the BCMA, I wonder if that's how the minister sees it as appropriate to deal with the doctors of this province: to bring in legislation without real consultation with that important group.

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course, we are wasting time. When a ministry has an overrun, there are two ways to go: either get it out of consolidated revenue, or by special warrant. So take your pick.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MR. JONES: I wonder if I might beg the indulgence of the House. I would like to discuss section 22 and section 27 together. They are very much related.

I think this section is before the House because of the Supreme Court decision last April 20 — the Garbarino case — in which a college instructor, who was a part-time college instructor at Vancouver Community College, transferred to Malaspina College and found the conditions of employment quite different. At Vancouver Community College she was allowed to opt into pension benefits, and when she transferred to Malaspina, she found the conditions of employment and the attitude of the employer quite different, in that she was not allowed to opt into pension benefits. This resulted in a Supreme Court decision that basically said that for some ten years the superannuation commissioner had screwed up, in the sense that the superannuation commissioner had misinterpreted the act. As a result of that Supreme Court decision, part-time employees were to be treated as first-class citizens for the first time in ten years.

What we see before us in section 22, I think, legitimizes that decision of the Supreme Court. I want to applaud the government and the minister for bringing in that part of the legislation to confirm and clarify the fact that part-time employees will now be able to opt for pension benefits, will be treated as first-class citizens in their colleges by their employers. This is good legislation.

However, there is a second part to this legislation, skipping down a few sections to section 27, which is a retroactivity section. What we had, as I mentioned, was a condition under which part-time employees were treated unfairly. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was unfair and that it was a misinterpretation of the act that produced that unfairness by the superannuation commissioner.

What we see in this section of the act is that full-time employees can now apply for retroactivity, as they could before. Part-time employees are fundamentally denied, except for one exception. What is that exception? Really, those part-time employees that applied before April 20, 1989. I don't think I will ask this question of the minister, because it's probably a rhetorical question, but how many employees does this affect? We have legislation before this chamber that really affects one person, and that's Garbarino. The act applies to that one part-time employee who is now permitted under this section of the act to apply for retroactivity. All other part-time employees are denied.

I am sure Ms. Garbarino is going to be pleased, because she is going to be able to opt for retroactive benefits, but it bars all other part-time employees. I guess we still have two classes of employees in our college system: those who are full-time, who can opt for retroactivity in terms of their pension benefits, and Ms. Garbarino. We are, by this legislation, discriminating against other part-time employees. We are barring them from claiming retroactivity — retroactivity that was not the employees' or the colleges' fault. It was due to an administrative error on the part of the superannuation commissioner.

I'd like to ask the minister how he justifies this treatment of those part-time employees who through no fault of their own have been denied the opportunity to opt for retroactive benefits, unlike full-time employees and Ms. Garbarino. How does he justify the unfair treatment of these part-time employees who, through this act, are still in a sense being treated as second-class citizens? They do not have the full right to claim retroactivity that other employees do.

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer to that question is that the other employees had not sought to challenge, as the person you mentioned had challenged. I'll add that they had not sought to challenge the superannuation commissioner's administration of the act. Accordingly, the superannuation commissioner consulted with both employer and employee groups, and the decision was made to amend the act in the fashion set out in this bill.

MR. JONES: I think the minister confirms the unfair treatment of these employees. What the minister is really saying is strong support for unions,

[ Page 8839 ]

because the only reason Ms. Garbarino could go through the process of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court was that she had the backing of a union. Not all of these part-time employees are going to have the same benefit. The minister confirms that we have a section before us in the dying hours of the Legislature that benefits one person in this province and denies equal opportunity and fairness for a whole group — hundreds and hundreds of part-time employees in our colleges. That is shoddy treatment of those employees, Mr. Minister.

Section 22 approved on division.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. LOVICK: I sincerely hope that we will inject a note of something different at this point, and be brief and succinct and to the point. Besides, Mr. Chairman, I canvassed this matter with the minister last night, so I'm simply going to follow up very quickly and ask for an explanation.

This amendment to the Sheriff Act has the effect of creating court bailiffs who are effectively employees contracted for that job. What they will do, I understand, is get a cut of the fee that is assigned to the sheriff for serving writs and injunctions. The question I posed last night had to do with whether, in the event the service provided by these private employees was inadequate and somebody had a complaint, those individuals would have the remedy of the ombudsman's office, given that the employees were no longer government employees. In answer, the Attorney said the point I was raising had some validity, and that's why this was a pilot project.

Would you tell me a little bit more about the pilot project: what it is, how it's working, and what you're going to do?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm going to try to do this without getting unnecessarily and legalistically verbose. Under the current regime, when you go out to repossess a logging truck, to use that as our example, the only way you — you being the person wanting to take possession of your asset — can recover by way of costs is by using the sheriff's services. The reason for that is that notionally, if not in fact, the sheriff is an officer of the court. In many situations — and I've seen them myself — there would be a bailiff available to you who could execute much faster, much more conveniently, but you cannot recover the cost of doing that in the same way that you can if you use the sheriff's services. So this system provides the opportunity for that to happen and for the individual to recover the cost.

Now, remember back to where I said they are if not officers of the court, certainly an extension of the court. So I say it's being done in a pilot way because we are very sensitive that we are establishing a set of criteria under which these individuals or organizations will be able to operate. We are only going to do it for the first year in two or three locations. I know one of them is Kamloops, I believe another is Surrey and I believe the third is Victoria — it may be Terrace, but I think it's Victoria.

We're going to establish the guidelines under which they operate and, frankly, examine it to see if it indeed works. If it doesn't, then we won't proceed with it. If it does, it won't replace sheriffs. It will simply give another vehicle by which an individual can get that service done and recover so it brings an element of fairness to it. But what we've got to be absolutely mindful of is that these individuals will be operating under the aegis of the court, will be an extension of the court, and therefore will have to conduct their operations in a way that is consistent with what it is they represent.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer. It certainly deals with a number of questions I would pose.

But two quick questions. Is the Attorney-General telling me that the concern raised by the ombudsman in his report last year about the possibly problematic area of people working as agents of the government and perhaps not doing what they should do as agents of the government, and the public, in the event that the service was not performed correctly, not having the remedy of complaining to government because it was a private contractor is in fact the case? Is that one of the reasons for this being a pilot project as opposed to a full-scale project?

[7:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can tell you that before they get the contract, I'm going to have to be satisfied that there is a process to deal with the issues you raise.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Exactly that. A set of standards to ensure that there is a standard of conduct and a standard of presentation as well, so that you don't have someone going off in sandals and a torn T-shirt to represent the court, and that there's somewhere you can complain. So if the standard is they can't use sandals and a torn T-shirt, then that will let me out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye, aye, aye.

MR. LOVICK: Clearly the other side does not have the virtue of patience.

This will be a very short question. Does this measure have any significant impact on current employment in the public sector? In terms of public sector workers, does it mean job displacement for some of those people. If so, how many?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is none. There will be no one displaced as a result of this.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive passed.

Title passed.

[ Page 8840 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: 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 92, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply on April 24 and 27, May 3, 9, 17, 25 and 30, June 6, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27 and 29, July 6, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 20 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $13,122,720,738 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, and section 1 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1989; and the sum of $415,530,622 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule D of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, and section 2 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1989.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No.3), 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 3), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1989-90 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. Because of my understanding that the House is about to enter an indefinite adjournment, I request this bill be permitted to advance through all stages this day pursuant to standing order 81.

Bill 88 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This supply bill is the third and final for the fiscal year 1989-90, the first having been introduced on March 31, 1989, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of appropriations for three months, and the second having been introduced on June 27, 1989, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of appropriations for one month.

This bill, which is the same general form as previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $13,122,720,738 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to this bill, and the sum of $415,530,622 for recoverable financing-transaction disbursements as recorded in schedule D under sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, and sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1989.

Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1989-90 year. I move second reading.

Bill 88, Supply Act (No. 3), 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 3), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 88; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

MR. ROSE: I thought it would be appropriate to talk now about the inflation that we have experienced in government over the years. When I first went to Ottawa in 1968, I believe the total budget for the whole country was $11 billion. Now we are trying to run a province on a measly $13 billion.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What were your wages back then?

MR. ROSE: Far more than I was worth.

Preamble 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 88, Supply Act (No. 3), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 8841 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date; and in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is in the precincts and will be joining us at any moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all the members just wait for a few moments. His Honour will be here soon.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1989

Parole Act Natural Gas Price Act

Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989

Offence Amendment Act, 1989

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989

Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Science Council Act Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1989

Islands Trust Act Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

Temporary Use Tax Validation Act Securities Amendment Act

Food Choice and Disclosure Act

Forest Amendment Act, 1989

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act

Trinity Western University Foundation Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act (No. 3), 1989

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.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call on the government House Leader to put the motion, I would like on behalf of the Chair to thank our hard-working Clerks, the Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Committee and those who worked so hard in the chair.

I would also, I'm sure, be remiss if I didn't thank all the members of everyone's office here — the people who work in our offices — and other functionaries within this building who have worked so hard for all the members to make our job much easier. To all of the staff in the buildings, a great thank-you for the work they've done in this session — a very long one and a hard-working one.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I echo those words of yours. I was prepared to say them myself. It's been a long session. It's been a very productive session. I thank everybody for their cooperation — my counterpart opposite, the opposition House Leader, and the Whip, and everyone here — and I wish everyone a very pleasant and enjoyable summer. I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. ROSE: Since this is an adjournment motion it's not debatable, unless it's to a particular time, and we don't really know the time. May I add my.... I think the word I was searching for was "sentiments," but I'm not quite certain about that at this moment. But I would like to echo my thanks, and wish everybody a very fine summer and lots of re-energizing, so we can come back here and start fighting all over again next March.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:45 p.m.