[ Page 9699 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act (Bill 23).

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Introduction and first reading –– 9699

Private Members' Statements

Globe '90. Mr. Serwa –– 9699

Mr. Cashore

American Sign Language. Mr. Jones –– 9702

Hon. J. Jansen

Health care costs. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9703

Mr. Perry

Adult-only apartments. Mr. Barnes –– 9706

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 9708

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have a very distinguished group. It's a group study exchange through Rotary International from Manchester, England. The team leader is Mr. Peter Batten, Rotary Club of Altrincham; Mr. Andrew Field, whose designation is food-processing; Mr. Nick Price, systems analyst; Mr. Richard Morgan-Wynne, a lawyer; Mr. Kieran Nolan, fire service; Mr. Colin Hewar, mining engineer. They are brought to Victoria by Mr. Edward Kisling from the Rotary Club of Vancouver-Chinatown. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. JONES: Joining us in the House today are a very special group of British Columbians. They are members of the deaf community in B.C. With them is their translator, who is explaining what is transpiring in the Legislature today. Their translator is from Douglas College, and her name is Dottie Rundle. Could I ask the House to give this group of very special British Columbians an extra-special warm welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and members of the House several members of the Native Advisory Committee on Heritage, Language and Culture who are in the gallery today. There's Dr. Thelma Sharp Cook from Vancouver, Miss Joanne Yovanovich representing Chief Tom Green from Skidegate, Chief Manny Jules from Kamloops, Dr. George Louie from Victoria, Mr. Ken Peeters representing Chief Joe Michell from Prince George and Miss Sophie Pierre from Cranbrook.

I will be introducing legislation later this morning that will enable the implementation of recommendations made to the government by this advisory committee.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: In this case the Chair will extend a personal special welcome as well.

Introduction of Bills

FIRST PEOPLES' HERITAGE,
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act.

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

Across this province native elders have told us of the deep and urgent concern felt by native people at the ongoing loss of their language and culture. It is a loss that has had and continues to have profound implications for all first citizens and their sense of wholeness, heritage and community. Native people have repeatedly demonstrated that a return to their language and culture brings with it a renewed sense of self-worth, self-confidence and dignity.

The government of British Columbia has pledged to support the native people of this province in their efforts to preserve their language and culture. As part of that commitment, I am very pleased today to tell the hon. members of this House about a new five year $10.7 million initiative being introduced by this government to help preserve and strengthen the culture and language of B.C.'s first people.

It is an initiative that is based on the report of the Native Advisory Committee on Heritage, Language and Culture, chaired by my colleague, the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa).

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just before we go to private members' statements, I would remind the members of the House that the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations is sitting at 10:30 this morning in the Douglas Fir Room.

Private Members' Statements

GLOBE '90

MR. SERWA: My statement this morning is on Globe '90. I had the pleasure at the end of March, just before the House sat, of attending Globe '90, an international environmental conference sponsored by the government of Canada and co-hosted by British Columbia. This conference attracted over 3,500 delegates from around the world and included an environmental products trade fair, which saw more than 20,000 visitors view 600 exhibits from many companies and countries. It was an important event marking the beginnings of a coordinated world effort to do something about the health of our planet in this crucial decade.

The 1990s will have been marked as a turning point for this planet. We will either ensure a healthy future for it, or we will condemn the next generation to even greater problems than we have today. This point was emphasized at the conference by Madam Gro Brundtland, who reiterated many of the main themes from Our Common Future.

What I found particularly valuable about Globe '90 was that it was not just a conference of the converted preaching to the converted; it was not simply one group making demands of another group. It was a coming together of many groups to recognize that although different people might approach the environmental question with different histories, backgrounds and opinions, we are all in this world together, and we must include everyone in the process of arriving at a solution.

[ Page 9700 ]

Globe '90 included a broad spectrum of individuals from a diversity of backgrounds, all offering their differing skills and perspectives to solve our common problem. Students, academics, practitioners, environmental leaders, local, regional, national and international politicians and civil servants all participated in the discussions and presentations surrounding the conference. Even more important, however, than the broad array of individuals who attended the conference was the variety of activities which took place at Globe '90.

Globe '90 was not just a conference; it was not simply a place for people to come and talk about the environment. It was an event with many forums in which people had meaningful and constructive dialogues. It also included a highly successful trade show, which provided some marketing assistance to the environmental industry. Globe '90 also allowed participants full access to a spectrum of environmental products that will help governments and companies in countries all over the world to clean up our planet and reduce pollution.

Over 20,000 people attended the trade fair at British Columbia Place Stadium. This fair attracted over 600 exhibitors, who displayed environmentally friendly consumer goods, new technologies for cleaning up the environment, and new methods for monitoring pollution and analyzing solutions for our spaceship earth. The theme of the British Columbia pavilion at the trade fair was "Handle With Care," and visitors, including thousands of interested members of the general public, were able not only to see exhibits but also to enjoy themselves and learn about the issues surrounding the environment in a variety of informative and interesting ways.

Visitors were able to watch a short video showing the environment through the eyes of children, and they saw some of the technological innovations that have been developed to monitor and clean occurrences of pollution, and engage in discussions with knowledgeable individuals from institutions, private companies and government agents about their environmental concerns. The trade fair at Globe '90 was truly a great success and a major step forward for achieving practical solutions to environmental problems in Vancouver, British Columbia and the world.

[10:15]

We also saw recyclable mugs, garden gloves, pamphlets and calendars emblazoned with the logo "Handle With Care." These were taken home by those attending the fair, in the hopes that they would be reminded of what they learned at Globe '90, and that it would encourage them to act locally— in their gardens, their kitchens, their neighborhoods — to reduce pollution and clean up the environment around them.

From the point of view of companies struggling to introduce necessary environmental products into the market, from the point of view of companies wishing to clean up their industries and reduce pollution emissions to comply with current standards, from the point of view of governments around the world, governments which are eager for information and agencies who need to acquire the ability to effectively monitor and clean up environmental catastrophes, from the point of view, Mr. Speaker, of the citizens of British Columbia who need exposure to balanced information and to practical solutions for reducing waste in our province, from all of these points of view, Globe '90 was a great success.

Because of this immediate and apparent success, this government has announced its intent to work with the government of Canada to establish a permanent globe secretariat in Vancouver, a secretariat which will establish British Columbia as a permanent international centre for action on the environment. The government also announced its intent to support and assist the Canadian Environmental Industries Association with setting up their head office in Vancouver, further strengthening our province as a centre for what is sure to become one of the fastest growing industries in the 1990s, and a very important industry for the survival of our planet, an industry which we should all encourage and support.

This comprehensive initiative has been aided by the fact that the Hon. Kim Campbell and our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) announced that Globe '92, which will follow up with the success of Globe '90, will be held again in Vancouver, with federal government support.

All of this can only lead to good things for British Columbians and the people of our whole planet. I was proud to attend Globe '90 and see all of the wonderful things that British Columbians can do if we work together. Globe '90, and other similarly important conferences and events, have all come to our province as a result of the great reputation as hosts which our province gained during Expo 86. These events are the result of a coordinated government effort to promote British Columbia and to have our province associated with positive and progressive events around the world.

Globe '90 was an excellent example of this government's continuing success in achieving this goal and attracting the favour of the world. Its legacy to British Columbians, environmentally and economically, will be felt into the next century. Our challenge is to ensure that Globe '90, Globe '92 and all of their successors become a permanent part of British Columbia and become associated with our province around the world and lead us to a better future for all mankind.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the member for raising this topic. I'd also like to thank the minister for making it possible for me to be a delegate to Globe '90. I found it a very worthwhile experience. I think it's appropriate that we reflect on that experience and see how we might improve on it, given that there are plans to have another Globe conference in the near future.

It's my opinion that it was a limited success and that we must learn from our experience. Originally the concept was that it be a trade fair, and it was on

[ Page 9701 ]

the insistence of the federal government, because it put in a major portion of the financial assistance, that it should also be a conference on sustainable development. It's my understanding that the total cost to taxpayers for Globe '90, between the federal and provincial governments, was $6 million.

As we look at Globe '90, we have to recognize that all of us still don't truly understand the original concept of sustainable development. Perhaps the best way to put it is that we have to turn our thinking from sustainable development to developing sustainability. We must have that priority in place, because if we don't, we may make some serious errors.

For instance, if we look at this from a global perspective, I think the conference failed to come to grips with the global problem. The fact is that the world economy is structured to benefit the rich and to drain resources from the poorer nations. This means that the total flow of wealth is actually from the Third World countries to the wealthy countries. This constitutes a global environmental disaster if we are not able to work together to turn that around.

Looking at the at-home aspects of this, we have to realize that we are in danger of looking upon the techno fix as the solution to environmental problems. So much concentration is on the technological solutions that are available. As important as those are, I believe we have our priorities upside down in British Columbia. We have to start with the wider community. We have to start with the grass-roots people and truly enlist their participation in developing a plan that is going to work. We have to recognize that we can't really have a comprehensive approach to reducing, reusing and recycling our waste stream if we don't start with community involvement. We can't look to the boardrooms for the solutions if we are not looking first to the people. We can't pay lip-service to the grass-roots community that is essential to making it work if we are not truly enabling them by having the procedures in place that enable a closed-loop system in dealing with environmental problems.

It's ironic that Globe '90 takes place in British Columbia, a jurisdiction that has one of the poorest records on environmental enforcement and protection in the industrial world. We have to realize that we have to look for ways to truly make a difference in the days to come.

I would like to refer to the writing of Andy Barham, who says:

"In order for the conference to realize its potential, it should form the genesis of a new era in which we treat ourselves and our planet with concern and tolerance rather than the mutual suspicion and exploitation that has dogged our footsteps on the long climb upward to civilization. This long-suffering earth is, after all, the only home we have, and probably the only island of life in a sea of infinite desolation. We owe it to ourselves, as the stewards of the planet, to make Globe '90 work."

Mr. Speaker, if Globe '90 is going to work, we must start by recognizing that there has to be much more involvement of world aboriginal people in the planning of the event. There has to be much more involvement of third-world people — especially third-world women — in the planning of the event, so that it's not only the people who have connections with the technological community who are doing the planning, and that planning is reflective of the grassroots nature of the community from which we come. This is not to denigrate the role of technology.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. SERWA: I appreciate the comments of the hon. member of the opposition. Just for his information — and I know that he indicated appreciation for the ability to attend Globe '90 — there were 3,500 delegates from over 60 nations all over the world. Third-world countries were represented, and many of the delegates were, in fact, women from all over those countries and third-world countries. When you attend functions like that, you should be really aware of who the delegates are and where they come from.

Globe '90 was a giant step forward in every sense of the word. It tied the concept of our common future together, which is the environment and the economy. It ensures that the environmental concerns of the moment are not just a passing fancy in time.

This government recognizes with a great deal of sincerity and commitment the importance of maintaining the environmental profile and environmental issues at the very top level of awareness through government and through the people of the province of British Columbia.

The member spoke about priorities, and I would like to remind that member, because he appears to have forgotten, that some time ago this government established a Task Force on the Environment and the Economy, because of the government's awareness of the necessity for cooperation and coordination by all of the people in the province. In British Columbia, sustainable development has become the focus for planning of our common environmental and economic future.

This task force that was established for the purpose of consulting with the public sparked a new way of thinking about how we integrate environmental and economic policy-making. A legacy of that particular task force is, of course, the round table, which has been established and which is up and running. British Columbians told us clearly that they wanted government to anticipate and prevent environmental problems rather than always having to react and repair them.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken an enormous number of measures recently and over the past years. Some of them relate to dioxins and the standards in pulp mills, and those standards will be among the toughest in Canada. The Ministry of Regional and Economic Development actively promotes sustainable development in our communities throughout British Columbia. Our cabinet committees have been restructured and coordinated to ensure that economic and environmental issues are discussed at the same table. Education programs for our young people and for all people to pursue the principles of sustainable devel-

[ Page 9702 ]

opment have been implemented. The Environmental Youth Corps provides young adults with experience in environmental conservation and research activities related to sustainable development.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Before recognizing the next member who has an opportunity to speak on private members' statements, the Chair would like to remind all members of the House of the purpose of private members' statements. They were originally conceived as a way of allowing matters which could not be brought up under standing order 35 to be vented in the House. It is specifically laid out in our standing orders that items which have already been canvassed in this particular legislative session are not to be canvassed now.

The reason I bring it up now is that the next item is one I have never seen before in the House. I think it will be entirely in order, and it will be a very pleasant change from what we normally have.

Members must try and remember that the statements they make are to be items not normally canvassed at another time in the House. That's the whole purpose of private members' statements on Friday. If you'd like, I can circulate a copy of the original rules conceived by your House Leader and I believe the House Leader on the government side, and agreed to by all sides.

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, if there is a motto that represents the New Democratic Party, it is the words of J.S. Woodsworth, who said: "What we desire for ourselves we wish for all." It is in that spirit of sharing, caring and, in particular, non-partisanship that I bring this item before the Legislature today. I want to share with members of this House a very worthwhile and enjoyable opportunity that I've had — one of the best that I've had in my three and a half years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. It was the opportunity to get a small glimpse into a culture that lives in our midst, a culture that I was not really aware of before and a culture that is very misunderstood and has been ignored too long in this country and in this province. That misunderstanding and ignorance of the deaf community, which I speak of, must stop.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'd like to illustrate that ignorance and misunderstanding with a small point. I had the privilege recently of attending the National Deaf Education Day rally in Vancouver, and part of that rally was a march up Robson Street. The members of the deaf community were wearing T-shirts and had placards advertising their belief in American Sign Language and their concern for increased educational opportunities. As we marched up the street, many drivers wanted to show their support for the people who were marching up the street. The method by which they did that was to honk their horns. That was a genuine show of support on the part of those drivers for the deaf community, but it was not a signal that the deaf could understand. I think that is symbolic of the attitude and the ignorance in British Columbia towards the deaf community.

The decision-making about the deaf that takes place in this House, in school boards and by officials and administrators is primarily by hearing people. As a result, those decisions are not always in the best interests of the deaf community. As a result, we have tremendous underachievement in terms of the academic levels that the deaf are able to reach. They are going to overcome those difficulties. They know that those impediments are unacceptable. They are going to change the way they are treated, and they are going to improve their educational level. They want education to improve their strengths as individuals and their confidence as individuals. They want more deaf teachers and deaf administrators, they want their own school and, most importantly, they want American Sign Language to be recognized as their language.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, just as the native Indian community knows best what is required for native learners, the deaf community knows best what is required for the deaf culture and deaf education in this province. They see American Sign Language as the key to that education. It is a unique language; it is different from English. It is like the heritage language of Italian in my community; it represents the culture, the heritage and the background in a unique and distinct way — distinct from English. That is the key, as the deaf community sees it, to improving their educational progress, to achieving better education — not just better hearing and speech — so that they can develop further pride in who they are as individuals and as members of the deaf community, and to assisting them in furthering their culture and in taking a greater degree of control of their lives.

Tuesday, December 6, 1988, was a very important day for the deaf community in Canada. In the Manitoba Legislature, in a spirit of cooperation between all parties, they approved a resolution drafted by a member of deaf community. It was presented by a member of the opposition and seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. The resolution that American Sign Language be the language of the deaf In Manitoba was unanimously endorsed. I'm hoping that the cooperation we saw in the Manitoba Legislature can be achieved in this Legislature as well.

I would like to quote from the Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson, Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation, in her seconding of the motion:

"American Sign Language was established as a living language in 1817 by Thomas Gallaudet. Dr. Gallaudet knew then, as we do now, that every language has a special relationship with the group of people who use that language. The language reflects who those people are, what they value and how they think about themselves and the world around them. Some scholars even refer to a language as the soul of

[ Page 9703 ]

the community of people who live and use that language."

Mr. Speaker, we need such a resolution in this House. I hope to bring such a resolution to this House and to see its unanimous endorsement, as we saw in Manitoba.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member's comments are indeed shared by both sides of the House regarding the deaf community. As do those with other handicaps, they face many challenges in our society. Many times the misunderstandings they face are the result of those handicaps.

I listened to the comments about the distinction between American Sign Language and English sign language, and I'm somewhat concerned about that distinction. Perhaps there is a confusion about that.

The responsibility for Jericho Hill, as you know, is the Ministry of Education's. We have in the province a terrific facility in Surrey, sponsored by the B.C. Elks. I was surprised that the member didn't refer to that excellent facility, which takes a leading role in the province in dealing with preschool children and their hearing handicaps. We assist B.C. Elks. They have an outstanding program. We have received countless letters of support and endorsement for that organization's efforts. They have a number of speech pathologists, teachers for the hearing-impaired, early-childhood educators and sign-language instructors on their staff. But they use English sign language. They feel that the older children use American Sign Language. So I'm not sure what the distinction is in terms of why the younger generation is taught English sign language. But certainly that is favoured at both Jericho Hill and the B.C. Elks facility, which has, as I said before, a national reputation for their initiative on teaching the deaf.

We certainly commend their efforts and sympathize with the concerns that many parents of deaf children have. We agree, generally speaking, with the comments just made by the member.

MR. JONES: I would just like to correct one small comment of the minister's with respect to the deaf community, which was describing them as handicapped. Mr. Speaker, they are not handicapped; they speak a different language, and that language should be American Sign Language.

The difficulty that the deaf community faces is not unlike ones I've talked about before in this House, such as the problem of literacy in the province and their struggle to improve their standards of education. It's not unlike the women's issue — which members in this House understand — and their struggle for equality. It's not unlike what the native Indian community faces with their struggle for recognition of longstanding grievances and recognition as a distinct culture — as is the case with the struggle in Quebec and their desire for autonomy and recognition of their distinctiveness. It is not unlike the situation that faces tenants in the west side of Vancouver, because that's what the deaf community faces as well in their eviction from Jericho Hill School.

The resolution that I mentioned from the Manitoba Legislature is going ahead in other provinces: Ontario and Alberta. It has been approved in other states and other countries in Europe and even in China. That is just the beginning of addressing the concerns of the deaf community. It goes far beyond that to where we should recognize that any agency in this province which receives government funding should provide complete access to the deaf community as well as interpreter-referral services, particularly in the medical area. I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the difficult situation in medical emergencies when communication breakdowns occur.

The time has come for the deaf community to be represented to improve their education and develop their culture in their own way through the use of American Sign Language. Something must be done to provide that community and that culture with the opportunities and equality that we all recognize and appreciate in this province,

MR. PETERSON: I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), I would like to introduce to the House some students from Chemainus Secondary School, who are in attendance with their teacher Mr. G. Foster. Will the House please join me in making them very welcome.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

MR. RABBITT: Society today is offering us many complex concerns which require a lot of complex decisions. It is perceived that government's role is to offer leadership and direction to resolve these concerns. The public's concerns may vary according to what level of income they have, how they can get an education, how they can spend a weekend, how long they can live and what their quality of life will actually be.

Regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or age, we all have one common concern, and that is our personal health and that of those around us. This concern is worldwide. In many parts of the world, as we well know, we've had a health crisis for years. In Canada and in British Columbia, we're also on the verge of a health crisis. I'll admit that we in British Columbia have one of the best health care systems in the world. I believe that our role as legislators in this Legislative Assembly is to see that it remains so.

I've been reviewing some statistics from Statistics Canada lately, going back to 1960, to try to get a snapshot of where we've been with a commitment from government to our health care. I would like to make the members aware of some of the stats that were of concern to me. In 1960 the per capita health care cost was $28.33. In today's dollars, that was a

[ Page 9704 ]

little over $124. That represented about 14.8 percent of the budget for that year. In 1965 the actual cost had risen to $33.50. In 1970 it had jumped to $120. In 1975 it was up to $235 or, in today's dollars, just about $580. In 1980 it was just under $500. In 1985 It was just under $900, and today it is over $1500 per capita for every man, woman and child. That represents about one-third of our provincial budget.

As you can see, I believe that the governments of the past have made a major commitment to health care. Our job here is to see that that commitment goes forward. As you can also see, the delivery of good health care requires a substantial number of dollars. Today in British Columbia we are delivering health care to 3.1 million people. Out of those 3.1 million people, 1.5 million are working. Out of that 1.5 million, we have 100,000 who work in the health care field. That means one out of every 15 workers in British Columbia today works in health care. The breakdown is roughly as follows: just under 8,000 as physicians and practitioners; 21,000 as registered nurses; 6,600 as practical nurses; 30,000 general hospital workers; and over 35,000 as professional or non-professional health care support workers. The cost of health care in British Columbia in the 1990-91 budget will be in the order of $4.8 billion, and that's approximately, as I said before, $1,500 for every man, woman and child.

I want to just focus for a moment on one segment of our society, our seniors. Eventually — with good luck and the good Lord willing — we're all going to get there and be one. Seniors represent approximately 13 percent of our population today. It's estimated that by the year 2015 — in 25 years — they will represent 50 percent of our population. When we consider that today, at 13 percent of our population, they are consuming 50 percent of our health care dollars. If we extend those population figures to 2015, at today's dollars, we would see that expenditure increase to in excess of $18 billion.

Another important factor is that we are told that in the last two years of our life we use up half the health care dollars that are expended on us. I think we have a major challenge in front of us. I don't want to see what has happened in other parts of the world happen here in British Columbia. An example is the Oregon State rationing system. I can't imagine rationing health care. The United Kingdom has a two-tier system. Every doctor I've met from the U.K. has told me: "Please, do your best to see that you don't come to that type of system." We've seen the system in Sweden that was held up to be Utopia and is now on the verge of bankruptcy. We don't need that, either.

It won't be easy. We're going to need cooperation within this chamber, we're going to need cooperation at the federal level, we are going to need cooperation at the local government level, we're going to need the cooperation of the entire medical profession, and most of all, we're going to need the cooperation of the public — those that are using the system. We will have values and priorities that will be debated, and they'll be debated at length. There's going to be a need for political will, but most of all, there's going to be a need for public will.

[10:45]

MR. PERRY: Health is a very broad subject, and under the accepted World Health Organization definition of the term.... I beg your indulgence to refer very briefly to what my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said a moment ago about deaf culture, because promotion of people's individual cultures and their self-respect is an important part of health in the sense that the World Health Organization has defined it.

I found the member's statement very insightful and thoughtful. I want to reinforce, from my observation of students at the Jericho Hill School and the Greater Vancouver Association of the Deaf, how different and exciting I have found their culture from my own experience. In particular, their questions to a politician speaking to them have been among the most insightful and honest questions I've ever encountered from anyone, be it medical students that I've taught or other university students or people in this assembly. Sometimes I wish we saw in this House more of the absolute frankness I have seen in their questions.

Let me turn to the sheer and utter hypocrisy I've just heard from the member for Yale-Lillooet, who described our system as "on the verge of a crisis" and then went on to suggest that he opposes rationing of health care. I find that remarkably hypocritical, coming from the member for a riding from which a citizen in Merritt recently died. He was in the Calgary Hospital, after he was denied adequate health services in this province, after he waited 30 hours in a Kamloops hospital for an urgent, emergency operation for which no person should ever have to wait 30 hours. That was a disgrace to our health care system. I do not know the detailed reasons behind what happened. I have seen no evidence that the Ministry of Health has investigated that case. I reiterate it in the House today because I find it shockingly hypocritical that that member, representing the town of Merritt from which that man came, would dare to say there is no rationing of health care in this province.

I challenge any member to speak to patients in their own riding, speak to the health care providers — the nurses, the physicians — and anyone involved in the waiting-lists and find out for themselves whether or not there is rationing. Right now there is rationing by means of waiting-lists. People requiring critical health services, such as hip replacements, eye operations to prevent the decrease of their vision, knee replacements or even heart surgery or emergency life-saving surgery, like the case I just referred to, are experiencing rationing.

I find it frightening to think the member suggests there is a crisis in funding, when in fact we have extremely good value for our health care system. He referred, disparagingly it seemed, to the numbers of people employed in the health care industry. I remind him that there will soon be three million British

[ Page 9705 ]

Columbians in this province, each of whom will at some time call upon the health care system, often for urgent requirements, and if not that, for critical care.

What does this government propose, Mr. Minister? What is it going to do about the sick? Sometimes in the government statements I hear the feeling that somehow it is wrong to have a sickness care system. The sickness care system, Mr. Speaker, is the very foundation of our medicare system and the reason we established it in the first place: so that people with serious illness could be treated equally in this country, as they are in advanced countries around the world.

Would the government prefer that we didn't look after patients with Alzheimer's disease, or people with severe strokes, or perhaps leukemics, like the brother of one of our members who was rescued from certain death through an extremely expensive, highly technological and highly successful procedure of bone marrow transplantation? Would they prefer that we did not look after the cystic fibrosis patients who used to die early in childhood? Perhaps we should save money on premature babies like my colleague's baby at the University Hospital, who was born at 26 weeks and formerly would have certainly died and cost us nothing, but now is a joy to both of her parents.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard so much hypocrisy on this subject.... I see the Attorney-General smiling there. He has no knowledge of what goes on in the Royal Inland Hospital in his own riding, or of the parents of children with severe disabilities requiring child development facilities in his own riding. I find it shocking that he sits there smiling smugly when he has done nothing to represent people from his own constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we will have a serious, healthy public policy in this province.

HON. MR. SMITH: Point of order. The second member for Point Grey is trying to facilitate a deceit on the House by making comments about my body language that are false.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General was impugning the motives of my colleague the second member for Point Grey, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There have been points made by both sides of the House, and I will take them under advisement at this point in time. I would like to ask the member to conclude his statement.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I find it totally offensive that the Attorney-General would accuse this member of being deceitful....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I ask you to please take your seat.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about controlling health care costs in this province, we will not engage in constant confrontation with the health care workers. If we're serious about controlling costs, we will not deny effective sex education or anti-AIDS education to our students. If we're serious, we will take seriously the Royal Society of Canada's recommendation that an AIDS patient will require at least $100,000 in health care costs, and we will prevent AIDS when we can, rather than denying the problem and smugly insisting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Before I recognize the member for Yale-Lillooet to make his final comments on this statement, there has been a statement made by the last speaker, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, that is unparliamentary. He used the term "hypocritical" of the member who had spoken previously, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement at this time.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, if the remark "hypocritical" is unparliamentary, I withdraw the remark; so be it. But I think the record of this provincial government speaks for itself.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that if the legislators in this assembly cannot work together to find a solution and simply harp on identifying problems, it's going to be very difficult to find any answers outside this assembly, either.

I would like to comment on one remark which the Health critic did mention, and I think it's very unfortunate that a member of this assembly would prey upon a very unfortunate incident without knowing the details, solely for political gain.

It's apparent that the incident the member spoke of....

MR. PERRY: On a point of order, the member for Yale-Lillooet is treading perilously close to insulting remarks. If he is impugning my motives or suggesting that I raised comments purely for political gain, I would....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, do I still have the microphone?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver-Point Grey has the floor at the present time.

MR. PERRY: If the member for Yale-Lillooet is impugning my motives or suggesting that my response was made for political gain, may I ask him to please withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to ask the member for Yale-Lillooet whether he was in fact impugning your motives.

[ Page 9706 ]

MR. RABBITT: I believe I'll let the record stand for itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. I would like to rephrase the question to the member for Yale-Lillooet: is the member imputing an improper motive to any member of this House by the statements made?

MR. RABBITT: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To set the record straight, the member said that he was not imputing an improper motive, and therefore I accept that as his answer.

Please proceed, hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. RABBITT: Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, these points of order have consumed two minutes and 50 seconds of my time, and I would like the Chair to add that to my time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I ask that the clock be reset for two minutes' additional time.

MR. RABBITT: It's very unfortunate that we heard the member make remarks in this House without — from his own admission — knowing the details.

The investigation which I understand has taken place has shown that in all the 30 hours that member speaks of, there was a bed available in Royal Jubilee Hospital. Yet you stand In this House and make scurrilous allegations. A professional doctor — and you use that to gain headlines. Shame on you!

[11:00]

There is a need for the royal commission, but that commission will not solve all our problems. We recognize that. There is a need for the public and this chamber to pull together to find solutions. I can tell you that with the attitude displayed on that side of the House by that member, we sure won't be able to count on that critic or that party to help us solve any of the health care problems in British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next speaker, I would just like to note that some members have spoken while they were not in their chairs. It's improper in this House, whether you've got the floor or not, and I think that should be curtailed.

ADULT-ONLY APARTMENTS

MR. BARNES: I want to read to the House a summary of a recommendation presented to the Vancouver city council by a social planning director. I'm sure that the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act has a copy of these minutes, because for years they have been circulated throughout the province as part of a campaign by the city of Vancouver to get British Columbia to do either one of two things, or perhaps both: (1) amend the Human Rights Act with respect to discrimination against children; or (2) permit the city of Vancouver, through its charter, to make sufficient amendments in order to ensure that families and children are not discriminated against.

I'm sure that the minister when responding will give us some enlightenment as to why the government has for so many years failed to recognize this serious condition in the province.

The summary states:

"Many families with children are experiencing difficulty in securing rental accommodation in the city of Vancouver. Discrimination against these families because of the age and/or number of children or the source of income of the parent is a significant contributing factor.

"This discrimination is currently allowable under the B.C. Human Rights Act, which does not include family status, age or source of income as prohibited grounds of discrimination in tenancy. Other provinces have legislation which prohibits discrimination on all or some of these grounds. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides protection on the basis of age. The impact on the provincial legislation of this superior act is not yet fully clear, and contradictory rulings have been made. A previous attempt to amend the Vancouver Charter to provide protection in tenancy on the basis of age, sexual orientation and family status was not successful, as these protections are not included in the Human Rights Act.

"The continuation of this situation is one factor making it increasingly difficult for families with children to live in the city."

The gist of that statement suggests that all that is required is for the province of British Columbia, through a simple amendment to the Human Rights Act or the Residential Tenancy Act, to include the categories of age, source of income, family status and sexual orientation in order to ensure that no one, because of those conditions, will be denied the right to a place to live.

In British Columbia recently a tenant by the name of Audrey Cope was served notice that because she had become pregnant and was expecting a child within a short period of time, she would have to vacate her condominium. She was renting a facility that was considered adult only.

This is something that has been going on and accepted by society as a normal and fair way of doing business — that the landlord should have the right to determine who he wishes to rent to. But in recent years, it is becoming very apparent that this is not just an isolated practice by landlords who have apartments for rent; it is more than just sometimes. I understand that in the Victoria area about 80 percent of the apartments for rent have a clause that does not permit families with children. When you stop and think about what that is saying to those families and to the youth, what a provocative idea that is in terms of what we say all the time in this House about youth being our most valuable resource.... It strikes me as something far more sinister than even hypocrisy.

[ Page 9707 ]

We know that cabinet ministers.... The Premier, in particular, has on many occasions expressed his support for the family, extolled the virtues of child-rearing and even talked about the unborn being a valuable resource in society. Yet here we have the Premier's government being taken to court because of this violation of fundamental human rights. I know this may come as a shock to members of this Legislature, but at this very moment your government has to defend its policies in the Supreme Court with respect to the Audrey Cope case, because contrary to the section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits discrimination because of age specifically, the B.C. Human Rights Act does not have such a provision, and the B.C. government is a defendant in the Audrey Cope case.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. Is there a reply?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: May I say that I recognize the comments that have been made by the member for Vancouver Centre. I also want to say that I appreciate his sincerity. One of the things that I've learned in this House in the time that I've been here and in my evaluation of the people who sit around this chamber is that that member, whenever he gets up to speak, speaks with a great deal of sincerity, speaks from the heart and means what he says. It's a pleasure for me to stand up and respond to him, because I know that what he says is said in sincerity and in good faith.

The concern he has expressed about children being denied a place to live within our society is an issue that is certainly felt as strongly by me as it is by that member, and I think it's felt by most, if not all, of the people inside this chamber. We are concerned about the implications that families have experienced in the last while trying to find rental accommodation. For my part, I have grown up and maintained in my lifetime that children were a blessing on society, that families with children were the strength of society, and that they were something we should protect and do all we could to nurture — and really be pleased with the opportunity of having young children among us. So the question of children and the proper accommodation for them is something of real concern to the government.

We have talked about amendments to the act in the throne speech, and we will have to wait until the legislation comes forward to see precisely what those amendments may be, Mr. Member. Maybe some of your concerns will be looked at then.

You mention two issues. One issue is where a child is born into a family of someone who is living within accommodations already and is required to move because of the birth of a child. That's one issue that I'm very concerned about, and one that we are looking at.

The other issue is the right to designate buildings as being adult buildings. It's very easy, and certainly where there's a great deal of sympathy for the concern of the family.... I don't want to minimize that in any way. But I have to tell you that I receive a tremendous amount of mail from senior citizens who live in accommodations that were constructed for seniors — they're adult accommodations. It becomes very, very difficult to write legislation in such a way that you will give full access to families for accommodations in the market and not deny the seniors the right to be able to have the peace and quiet that they seek in the remaining years of their lives.

I know that there's a great concern for the family, and I share that with you. But we are also very concerned about how to deal with the problem so that we don't take away legitimate rights from seniors who are in buildings that were not designed for family use in the first place, and so that seniors are not losers in any legislation change. That's an issue that we're very concerned about, and we're trying to deal with it. But it's extremely hard to find a solution that accomplishes both of those purposes. It may seem easy, but in practice it is very difficult.

The buildings that I have some real concern about — and I know that they do exist — are buildings that were originally designed for families. At one time they used to accommodate families, but landlords have chosen, because it's in their interest, to limit those buildings to adults only. I find that a very unfortunate decision on their part; I'm concerned about that. But dealing with that without affecting the others is not easily achieved.

MR. BARNES: I very quickly want to respond to the minister that it's not only myself who is sincere. I appreciate him paying me that respect. It's also the people without the homes, the families with children who have no place to go, the street kids — they're the ones who are sincerely looking for a place. The Audrey Cope case is sincerely hoping to fight on their behalf, and your government is the defendant. Although you didn't address that issue, the point I'm making is that we wouldn't be talking about this today if the government had responded to the request of both Victoria and Vancouver councils with respect to amendments to the charter or to two provincial acts, the Human Rights Act and the Residential Tenancy Act.

I should inject a little of politics into this, because the reality is, notwithstanding the minister's not that bad of a response — although he made no commitments — they are more promises. The fact is that when the New Democrats were defeated in 1975, this government immediately began to dismantle all of the protection that was in place with respect to tenants in this province. The rentalsman was removed. Rent review processes were denied. Construction of affordable housing was curtailed or eliminated. You would get the impression that we're talking again about the rights of the landlord and of adults who want to live without children in their facility.

But there's something far more fundamental than this; we're talking about a basic right: an access and

[ Page 9708 ]

equality system that allows everybody equal access regardless of not only race, national origin and sex — and these other things — but age. We're talking about a system where young people, the ones that we're concerned about, our most valuable resource, are treated equally. That's the fundamental concern, and that's being eliminated.

[11:15]

We're saying that adults have the right to get rid of the youngsters if they don't want to live with them! That's fine; they may have that right. I've read some of those arguments, but that is not the first concern. The first concern is the rights of young people. If adults want to have the separate facilities, or live someplace like the seniors, we can deal with that as well. But we have to sit down and negotiate; we have to sit down and deal with those issues case by case. I think it is unfair to tell a husband and wife, because the wife becomes pregnant, that they're going to have to move out of their apartment where they've lived for eight years because these are adult-only premises — without any opportunity to prove that they could live there quite well, and get along with everyone else. It's a prejudice attitude. It's basically contrary to the democratic process; it's contrary to fairness. It is just unprincipled.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. BLENCOE: As deputy House Leader for the opposition this morning, I would like to make some comment that unfortunately this side of the House was not given the courtesy of being told the business for the day. I was prepared to assume that it was an oversight on behalf of the government House Leader. We have witnessed in past years what happens when we have lack of communication over such House business; it creates all sorts of problems. I can only conclude on seeing the attitude of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) this morning that a somewhat petulant attitude has forced the estimates on us today. I hope that we can have the communication that we've had in the past and that we don't get back to the old bad days we used to have.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would just like to point out that we had indeed intimated that we would be going to the Attorney's estimates. However, he pointed out to me the urgency and the time requirements surrounding this bill, which there didn't seem to be a lot of opposition to. Under standing order 25 it is urgent because of the time limitations. That's why we've chosen to go to committee on this bill. I don't think there should be any problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew say he had a point of order?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, unless you were about to say something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to say that I thank both hon. members for their comments. I understand completely what's been said. I'd just like to remind all members of the House, though — and I'm sure that those of you who have been here for some time are well aware — that even though there is a vehicle available through which these communications can take place so that both sides can get together to agree on the business which is going to come forward on any given day, after orders of the day are called by the Clerk it still remains the prerogative of the government House Leader to conduct the business of the House in the way that he sees fit. I just remind members of that. Perhaps rather than getting into a debate over this, which would be highly irregular, we could proceed. The second member for Victoria said estimates, but I understand we're doing Bill 4.

MR. BLENCOE: On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, I take your points well. We don't want to extend this debate, but I should add that I did communicate with the minister's office this morning and asked for the courtesy of some response. I received none. We assumed that we were going to do estimates, and he communicated that to me at the start of the session this morning. Then we find — I can only conclude it is because the Attorney-General seems to be calling some shots over there — that the bill is to be called. It makes it very difficult for us on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. I just want to put that on the record.

Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, your points are well taken. I hope the communication lines will be opened as they have been in the last few years.

MR. SIHOTA: On the comments by the government House Leader, I wouldn't want it to be suggested on the record that in any way we're holding up a bill that the government considers to be urgent and necessary. As I heard his comments, he was saying that there was some urgency to this matter. The government has never communicated that to us; it has never indicated that there is some urgency to this matter. The Attorney-General, in his comments when the bill was read for a second time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, first of all I must point out to you, and I know you are well aware, that that is not a point of order. You have made your point and it's on the record, but now we're getting into a matter of debate. We should proceed with the business that's been brought before us by the government House Leader, and that is committee stage of Bill 4.

On section 1.

[ Page 9709 ]

MR. SIHOTA: As a matter of procedure, I take it we're going to be dealing with 11.1 and 11.2 separately, and finally section 2. It that the way?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can deal with them separately, but not by way of vote. We'll vote on the section, but we can deal with the two parts separately. Is that satisfactory?

MR. SIHOTA: I was wondering if the Attorney-General can advise me on this matter with respect to this bill. Does this bill embrace the recommendations made by the legislative committee with respect to the retirement plans for judges?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said in second reading, this bill reflects a consultation with the judiciary and with the government's program of a year ago that had provided opportunity for senior people to take advantage of retirement. It would have been inappropriate at that time to combine the two, so this is a separate bill.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the process of going to committees is a laudable process, and I've often said in this House that we ought to do more of that than has been the case in the past. It seems to me that when a report comes down from a committee, particularly as it has in this instance, where it has the unanimous endorsation of a committee, it would make a lot of sense for the government to embrace in totality the recommendations of the committee.

That's not to suggest that a committee is perfect in its deliberations and its conclusions, and there may be occasions in which a committee may come to an erroneous conclusion or an unwise recommendation when examining a matter. In my mind, that would justify the government making changes to legislation that don't reflect the recommendations of the committee.

It's obvious that there were consultations in this case between the Attorney-General and members of the judiciary. I must say I think that's a healthy thing to happen, because I think it's imperative there be ongoing consultations between the members of the judiciary and the Attorney-General in all matters including these matters of pensions and early retirement for judges. Again, that's the kind of thing I think should be encouraged.

Having said all of that, however, I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General could then tell us what representations he received that convinced him to deviate from the recommendations of the committee.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is confused, I guess. I'll refer to the committee's recommendations with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I know it's improper to do so, but the member seems to insist. The committee's recommendations have been reported to the House. Some of them have been implemented by the executive council, others are in the process, and still others are subject to further consultation and advice from the people they affect.

MR. SIHOTA: I know the Attorney-General was chatting with his officials; and therefore, I may not have had full opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Would you like to make an introduction? Excuse me, I think my colleague for Nanaimo has a point to make.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you for your indulgence. I'm wondering if I might be allowed the indulgence of the House also to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I certainly wouldn't do this at this time except that the people have just arrived, and I know they would like to be acknowledged.

Sitting in the gallery today are three people: first, my constituency assistant, Miss Susan Baker; next to her is our star volunteer in my constituency office, Miss Jacquie Coates; and next to her is another volunteer in our office, whose name is well known to this chamber, Ms. Diana Pullinger, who is also, coincidentally, the mother of my colleague the second member for Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please join me in making them all very welcome.

Oh, there's one more. I am indeed culpable. I see my eyesight must be failing. There is yet another person, another dear friend, Ms. Betty Baker, who happens to be the mother of Susan Baker and is also an active, hard-working volunteer in our constituency. Please make her welcome too.

MR. SIHOTA: Boy, my colleague the first member for Nanaimo is beginning to top the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) with respect to his introductions. He is doing a wonderful job, I must say, in the House and doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents and speaking out for the concerns of ordinary people in Nanaimo. Of course, the second member for Nanaimo is doing just as good a job, and I know her mother....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General is getting a little testy, and would like to see us return to the debate. He seems to be upset that we take some time to introduce people.

The Attorney-General was saying, during his comments on this legislation and in the introduction of the early retirement provisions of the bill, that he felt that it was on the basis of advice he received from members of the judiciary, with respect to their views and comments on the recommendations that flowed from the committee.

If I recollect correctly — I was on that committee, of course, and so was the former Attorney-General; I think he was still on it after he stepped down as

[ Page 9710 ]

Attorney-General — we debated this matter as a committee at length.

I must say, since I'm on my feet, that the former Attorney-General actually deserves a fair bit of credit for bringing this matter up in front of the legislative committee and asking us to look at this very important issue for judges and dealing with the need to make sure that there is an early retirement provision for judges at the Provincial Court level. I must commend the former Attorney-General for his work, and I must say he is a very fair and evenhanded gentleman who recognized the need to look at the early retirement provisions for judges. I'm sure....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: My colleagues are asking for comparisons to and contrasts with the current state of affairs with the current Attorney-General. I would think that the behaviour this morning is telling right then and there about the differences between the two gentlemen.

As I was saying, the former Attorney-General in his wisdom saw the need to deal with this very important issue of early retirement for judges. I see the Attorney-General doesn't want to listen. I guess it must hurt a little bit to hear about his predecessor and some of the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: My colleagues are suggesting that the comparison is not particularly flattering, and maybe that's the concern. But now that I see the Attorney-General is seated again in his chair, let me continue with the comments I was making.

I was commending the former Attorney-General for the work he had.... I see the Attorney-General is seated again, so we will continue.

The former Attorney-General should be commended for the work he did, because he recognized that it was important — now that the Attorney-General is listening again — to make sure that we had early retirement provisions for judges in British Columbia, particularly those who had served on the bench for quite some time.

I must say that it's quite a job to be a judge in British Columbia at the Provincial Court level, because one deals with a variety of cases.

I have often commented on this, and I guess I'm going to have to comment on it again. As I watch the debate here, it seems that every time I have an opportunity to raise judicial matters in this House and the Attorney-General's in the Legislature, he has taken it upon himself to engage in the kind of posturing that he's doing right now. He prefers to turn his back to the opposition, engage in conversations with members of his cabinet and not listen at all to the debate going on in the House. That type of arrogance I find to be quite offensive and really unbecoming of the conduct and behaviour that one would expect from the chief law enforcement officer in the province of British Columbia.

If I may add, I was talking about his predecessor earlier on. If I might digress for just a minute on this issue, the former Attorney-General is a fair and evenhanded gentleman, and we would have a lot of debate in this House, and needless to say — given the different political philosophies of the two parties — it would be good debate. I'm not being generous when I say this, but the former Attorney-General would always listen, and we would have a healthy debate in this House around critical issues. If we disagreed, we disagreed, but we agreed to disagree, and it was done in a very gentlemanly way. But the type of posturing we're seeing right now in the House is an indication of how far we've departed from that which was once the norm.

I was talking about early retirement of judges....

[11:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to mention the word "relevancy."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) says that one doesn't have to do that, and I suspect that if she's saying that, when we get into her estimates, she's going to do the same kind of stuff. I would hope not.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the Attorney-General won't get a medal for his behaviour this morning.

The need for an opportunity for judges to leave the bench is what I was talking about, and in my mind, there is a compelling argument as to why we should provide early retirement for the judges. As I was saying before I digressed here, we have judges at the provincial level who are really at the front lines. They deal with the kind of disputes that are unfortunately all too common in our society and in many ways point to some of the gaps we have in society. The kind of human drama that judges see every day as Provincial Court judges is something that I think is deserving of comment as we debate this section.

Provincial Court judges deal with a variety of matters. They deal with family matters, if I may say so, and with a lot of people who don't have the means to engage counsel, particularly on family matters. As a Provincial Court judge at the family level, you're not required just to deal with the law and its application but to be in many ways a social worker and enforcer and sensitive to people's needs, particularly when it comes to matters of custody and maintenance. Often these judges see the results of poverty in our society. They see the consequences of an inadequate social net. They see the consequences of family disintegration, alcoholism and drug addiction at both the family court level and the criminal level.

It is tragic, Mr. Chairman, to see that so many of our problems as they relate to poverty come before the Provincial Court bench, be it at the family level or

[ Page 9711 ]

the criminal level. As I go around and talk to judges and those involved in the justice system in the province, they comment on the absence of social policy and a social net to deal with the dilemmas that people are often faced with. The justice system, particularly at the Provincial Court level, is in some ways a very crude instrument by which one can resolve these problems — I see the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) in the House — that are caused by the enormous cutbacks and elimination of services by the Ministry of Social Services.

I know that the young people in the gallery today would be interested in knowing that the number of adolescent and youth cases that come before the provincial judiciary is enormous. Really, a lot of the work being done by these judges ought to be done by....

MR. DAVIDSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect, I've been listening to the ramblings of the member for some time, and while he may have another forum for his comments, certainly this is not the time, under this particular section, to deal with the various matters he is canvassing. The bill before us is very clear, and I think that only with the greatest stretch of the imagination could any relevance be found in the member's remarks.

MR. BLENCOE: To the member's point of order, my colleague the critic for Attorney-General is, I think, showing his depth of knowledge of this issue. He's trying to get the attention of the Attorney-General, the chief law enforcement officer in the province. We're dealing with the background to this issue, and he's providing information which I think Is very useful. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's most unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General has his back to us. He talks to everybody else. I think this is an important bill. He should pay attention to what our critic is saying on this issue.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order, I know that the Chair recognizes very clearly that the statements by the second member for Delta are entirely frivolous. All he did was point out very clearly to the world that he doesn't understand the subtlety of the debate. Let me remind him of what Blake once said: "The sun's light when he unfolds it depends on the organ that beholds it." Sadly, that gentleman can't see the reality; thus he raises a frivolous point of order. Mr. Chairman, let's get back to the learned discourse by my colleague from....

MR. DAVIDSON: It is offensive to this member that when a valid point of order is raised, the member last speaking — who continually attacks every other member in this chamber not living up to his personal intelligence level, as he imagines — should be subject to that kind of comment on a point of order that the member has asked the Chair to raise.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I'm under the misapprehension that we're here to debate Bill 4, when obviously we're here to eat up the clock because of some inability of the opposition to come to terms. If that is the case, certainly the members could just say so, and we'll accept the debate for the frivolous waste of time which obviously it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On this point of order, I would suggest that unless the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) has something to add, it certainly has been well covered.

The original point of order was valid. All members are well aware of the requirement in any debate for relevancy to the subject which is being debated. The Chair does allow a certain amount of latitude in these things with respect to the comments made about the postures of various members within the House, and it does not really fall within the purview of the Chair to judge whether these are good, bad or indifferent.

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: I will be very brief. I would just like the record to show that the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is widely regarded by members on this side not only for his accomplishments, but also for his modesty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't win. I think we should proceed with section 1 of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: I agree.

Let me just say this. We have some young people in the gallery, and I think it would be too bad if they leave with the impression that all we do is debate points of order.

This is a very important section, and I want to make it clear. The section deals with early retirement of judges. I will indicate to the Chair exactly where I'm headed in making my points. I think there are good and compelling reasons as to why one ought to support a provision for early retirement for judges, and that's based — in part, but not in totality — upon the kind of life experiences these judges have in the type of work that they do. I think it would be sad if this Legislature, in debating this bill, did not take a few minutes to point out and pay respect to the work that these judges do at the Provincial Court level.

As I said, there are some young people here, and we wouldn't want them to leave with a cynical attitude, saying that all we do is debate points of order. I think it's a very important issue and that the judiciary is very essential to our democratic process.

The cases that come before a lot of these judges — be they family or criminal — are a reflection of the failings we have as a society. We have in British Columbia a problem with poverty. I would submit that many of the problems that come before the courts in British Columbia today, particularly at the Provincial Court level, are a consequence of the poverty that we see in British Columbia and the absence of resources to deal with it....

[ Page 9712 ]

MR. DAVIDSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect, clearly the member is now digressing dramatically from the intent of the first section. Covering the remarks that he is at this time is clearly well out of order and beyond the reason of any individual to stretch section 1 of the bill to cover the Social Services estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1 of the bill does deal with early retirement of judges. There is a requirement for relevancy when dealing with section 1.

I would also say to hon. members that the debate is drifting back to points which would normally be debated in second reading. It seems to me that some of the points were covered, although I do recall the hon. member who has been speaking saying during second reading that he wanted to address some of these points when the bill came before committee.

But perhaps we could proceed, keeping in mind the requirement for relevancy at all times. We're dealing with section 1, which deals with early retirement of judges.

[11:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe those who are watching will leave with a cynical impression of the Social Credit Party and the member for Delta, but they sure as heck aren't going to leave with a cynical impression about what this party stands for and the issues that we'll debate.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: And perhaps a cynical attitude about the chief law enforcement officer who'd rather read than listen.

There are compelling reasons for the early retirement of Provincial Court judges. The experience of these judges is that they see the failings of society in dealing with problems of alcohol, drugs and poverty, and the absence of a social scheme to provide an appropriate way of dealing with these matters. Consequently, judges find themselves working as much like social workers and family counsellors as they do people who impose the law and make determinations of law as it relates to a case that's before them.

So it is my wish that this government would recognize the need to make sure that those resources are allocated, and perhaps we wouldn't have a problem with so many judges wanting to leave the bench because of the stress imposed upon them.

I must say that in my conversations with Provincial Court judges, in particular, they question why we do not have adequate resources to deal with the problems that come before the courts. Let me just give you one example, because the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) said: "Well, come on; that's not a problem." Let me give you one very simple example, because it's public as opposed to any private discussions I may have had.

I'm sure that the House is very well aware that.... I think it was Judge Loretta Chaperon who made a number of comments last year with respect to the availability of services for young people who found themselves before the courts and requiring psychiatric treatment. She commented on the fact that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, for example, was remiss in not fulfilling its obligations to the young people who come before the courts. By not attending to their needs in terms of psychiatric treatment, alcohol treatment and drug treatment for young people, she was frustrated that more and more of these matters were coming before the courts.

If I'm not mistaken, there was another case in Saltspring last year where a court commented — I think came it very close to, if not indeed saying — that that ministry was being negligent in terms of the work it was doing, because it wasn't maintaining the standard of expectation that is laid out for it in its statutes.

Therefore it seems to me that judges may want to retire early from that type of experience. As much as this provision may allow for them to do that, it does not attend to the problem that many of them see from day to day. I'm sure that many of those people who will be leaving the bench will be putting time into working at the community level — perhaps not politically — to make sure that services are provided to fill those gaps. I think that should indeed be the case.

I see that my time is running out.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague is covering is critical to the bill. I think, if I may add, that it's unfortunate that the Attorney-General continues to turn his back to the opposition, indicating his petulance in this issue. I think it would be very useful for the Attorney-General to pay attention and listen. He might indeed learn something from the debate.

It's unfortunate that the chief law enforcement officer, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this point has been covered a number of times. If you're just interceding on behalf of the other member so that his time can be renewed, we'll turn back to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to encourage the involvement of the Attorney-General in this debate. Maybe I'll do it by putting a question to him. The question is straightforward.

This provision of early retirement differs somewhat from the recommendations made by the legislative committee. Could the Attorney-General advise the House what representations he received from the judges that warranted a departure from the recommendations of that committee?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said some 40 minutes ago to the same question, the recommendations that came from the committee are indeed different — separate — and are being dealt with by a separate process.

This recommendation was not dealt with by the committee; it had nothing to do with the committee. It is one that was, after consultation with the judi-

[ Page 9713 ]

ciary, felt to be appropriate. It has been for a couple of years. It was felt that it would be more appropriate to deal with it separately than when the similar provision went through for senior civil servants.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General made some interesting comments with respect to the need for a separate process to look at this provision, as opposed to the general process that was utilized in earlier legislation. That's an interesting comment from the Attorney-General, because it seems to me that the government ought to provide some explanation as to why it chose to engage in a separate process. That is a consideration in my mind, and I'm sure that other members of the House would be interested in knowing.

Perhaps the Attorney-General is hoping to get into this debate. He has put down the notes he's reading. Perhaps he could advise the House what that separate process was, and why he felt that this provision should be presented in this legislation in the fashion that it is.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, as I said in answer in second reading to the very intelligent questions that came from the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), there is a long, several-hundred-year history in our system of separation of the executive in the judicial branches. It's simply a matter, in my view, that it was more appropriate that it be done separately, rather than at the same time.

It's a matter on which I have had the benefit of wide consultation with the judiciary, for which I am greatly thankful. We discussed the matter at their conference last year at which Justice Sopinka and I were the guest speakers.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General, if I heard him correctly, says that it was in his own head. Could he tell us what considerations darted through his mind?

By the way, let me thank him on behalf of the member from Atlin for his compliment to that very learned member in this House. What were those considerations, Mr. Attorney?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, for the third and final time on this issue, I have informed the member that the primary consideration is the separation of the judiciary and the executive branch of government, and the notion of independence that flows from one, that notion to which I subscribe deeply and thoroughly.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understood the Attorney-General earlier on in his comments, he said that he wanted this provision to be dealt with by way of a separate process, and he said a general process had been applied to other matters. The answer that he's provided doesn't address that question. I put that question to him again.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's becoming increasingly apparent why the Leader of the Opposition is so carefully and diligently seeking lawyers to run for him in the next general election. I can understand his problem. The provisions are separate, and one was recommended by a committee of the House. This one was not dealt with by the committee of the House. The House made no recommendations or comments on It. It was discussed by me and the chief judge and members of the judiciary. After the consultations took place, it was deemed to be appropriate, and it is coming through by way of a separate bill.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to pick up on a point that the Attorney-General just made in answer to a question from my colleague. First, I'd like to establish whether I heard him correctly. Is he telling this House that part of the reason for setting up a separate approach, if you will, to dealing with pensions for judges as opposed to other civil servants has something to do with the necessary separation between legislative and judicial functions of government? Is that what he said?

HON. MR. SMITH: In part, Mr. Member. As you will see from this bill, there are two notions flowing here. There's the general pension provision that applies to the judiciary. That was the subject of the matter of the committee that reported to this House last year. From to time to time in government there are provisions made for augmented pension programs — early retirement, whatever you wish to call them — so to that extent that's what this bill deals with. As you see it has a time-line on it for its availability. The answer to that is yes. I think it appropriate that they should be dealt with separately. If you reflect on the debates that were in this chamber with respect to the pension programs for senior civil servants and the like, I think it would not have been appropriate to have wound that kind of debate and those kinds of suggestions into something that would impact on the judiciary. I think it's very important, and indeed is a fundamental role of the Attorney-General, to ensure that that separation does indeed exist and very much so.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, and I accept entirely that there may well be a case to have those two separate mechanisms. But surely you're not going to try and confuse the issue by suggesting some kind of constitutionality is at stake, where we talk about necessary separations between executive, judicial and legislative branches of government. That's clearly a red herring. What we're talking about is an administrative mechanism that you apparently find convenient and apparently you have justification for. But surely you're not going to suggest that this is an appeal to Montesquieu or some such thing.

HON. MR. SMITH: It is most clearly not a red herring. While there isn't a constitutional separation in writing in our system — and it's one of the issues that are being dealt with by the Meech Lake accord —

[ Page 9714 ]

it is in fact the convention of our constitution, and has been for a long time.... Conventions in our system are perhaps more important than what is in writing in a parliamentary system; it is the convention that there is a separation, and it is one that I will honour. It is not a red herring; it is anything but a red herring. It is extremely important, and I think it's important that all parliamentarians recognize it.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to belabour the point, but we can't let that pass. As somebody who has a little background in constitutions and knows something about the classic debates of division of powers, never in all the literature that I have seen on this subject has anybody talked about division of powers in terms of mechanisms to pay pensions to people from the various spheres of influence within governments. When we talk about divisions of power, what we're discussing is to prevent and preclude the blurring of distinctions of legitimate functions of government: three functions of government, three roles and duties to be performed by various servants of the state, servants of the society. To connect that somehow with how we remunerate those individuals for services performed, quite frankly, is beyond me. I think, with all due respect to the Attorney-General, his answer to my question hasn't allayed that concern at all, and I would ask him again to please explain. Perhaps I'm missing something. I'd be the first to admit it if I were.

[12:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: Let me try it this way then. I don't presume to be talking about division of powers as that phrase would be understood by anyone. I am simply saying that there is, by convention of our system, a separation. There should be, and it should be respected.

I think that to wind pension legislation for early retirement together, given — and reflect on — the kinds of debate that took place in this chamber about that early retirement scheme for senior civil servants and administrators of Crown corporations and the like.... If judges were lumped into that debate at that time, I think it would not have been a wise thing to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Because of the notion of separation, and because I think the issues that were canvassed in that debate did not relate frequently to the question of pension. They related to government philosophy; they related to goodness knows what. I would have to go back and look at Hansard. But in view of some of the things that were said, the accusations that were made and the motives that were attributed, I am thankful that the judiciary was not in any way wound into that discussion. I think it was a good move not to do it, and I am pleased it didn't happen.

MR. LOVICK: The Attorney-General's answer — again with the greatest possible deference and respect — doesn't advance us any further along the road to enlightenment, I fear. Separation of powers — we know the doctrine, and we understand it. Is the Attorney-General telling us that because we have somehow put judges into a separate act, therefore there will not be any possibility of questions about motives of government or about possible reasons for establishing pension funds?

Is he suggesting that because these folks are judges, they will of necessity then be immune from that kind of questioning? That seems to be the logical conclusion to the point you just made.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not at all. I fully expect the opposition to question the motives of government and to do whatever they can to impugn government. What I don't want to have happen is to have the judges wound into that. I would expect to do it on both counts. I would expect you to do it when we introduce any legislation, but I think that the subject matter, if you recall, related to reduction of the number of civil servants and all sorts of other things in terms of the other issue.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with those kinds of issues, so the kinds of questions you may have about motives here and impugning the desire of governments.... Whatever you wish to do and however you wish to do it is quite open for you to do. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, expect that that would limit you in any way. Obviously it hasn't today, so not at all.

I think it's important that those issues be separated. Quite frankly, in the experience I have had over the last couple of years and in recognition of the kinds of debates that took place in the legislation we had with respect to the public service, it is obvious to me that that was a wise decision to take, and I'm glad I took it.

MR. LOVICK: I didn't think this subject was terribly contentious or significant, but the more I listen to the Attorney-General, the more concerned I'm becoming.

Is the Attorney-General suggesting that somehow the debate that took place on the early retirement initiatives program focused on individual civil servants who were retiring and suggested something untoward or dishonourable on behalf of those individuals who were retiring? What's the point being made? Why this separation? Why are we suggesting that a discussion about pension and early retirement for judges must necessarily be different from a discussion about pension and retirement for other senior civil servants? Explain that, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is being silly to use up time again, but that's fair enough. I will accept that the purpose of the opposition today is to use up the clock, as happened the other day when I asked for leave to put this bill in, and it was denied by the opposition. Of course, the people who will have

[ Page 9715 ]

trouble with this are the judges who are waiting for this to pass.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, the Attorney-General was trying to bully his way in the other day. I want to put this matter on the record on a point of order, and I want him to clarify or withdraw the comment that he just made.

The fact of the matter is that the other day he came into this House and, without consultation with his House Leader and our House Leader, asked that leave be given for a committee stage hearing on it. If there had been consultation, there might have been a different outcome.

But for the Attorney-General to suggest a motivation on the part of the opposition to delay this is a calculated cheap shot on the part of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order, and I am sure the hon. member knows it. That was an expression of opinion made from this side of the House, and it is just not a point of order. So perhaps the Attorney-General would like to continue.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, because those words are on the record, let me say for the record what is the case. In fact, there was consultation between the House Leaders. In fact, when I talked to the opposition House Leader thereafter in this chamber, he said that one of the problems he has is that he can't keep some members on the other side to the agreements that he makes. I want that to be on the record.

MR. SIHOTA: This is the same Attorney-General who threw a temper tantrum at his House Leader yesterday and insisted that this legislation and his estimates come forward. I just find it despicable that the Attorney-General....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, take your seats please. We're here to debate the committee stage of Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990. We're not doing that, so we're not serving the people of this province in the manner that they should be able to expect. Let us continue our debate on the bill before us.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought the Attorney-General was in the middle of answering a question.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'd do well to have less interjecting from both sides.

MR. LOVICK: As my colleague pointed out, before the debate was interrupted, the Attorney-General was ostensibly in the process of answering a question before he got carried away with his own rhetoric and proved to be insulting. I give him every opportunity to answer the question this time perhaps trying for a little more civility.

HON. MR. SMITH: The interruption occurred as a result of the specious point of order raised by the member for Esquimalt — this House's resident legal pinhead.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can tell the first member for Nanaimo is that the bills were introduced with a timing difference simply so that any debate that members wished to have on any matter relating to the motivation of either of them would not be wound together. I am absolutely not suggesting that any members of the House impugn the integrity of any civil servants or otherwise during debate on the early retirement that came through before.

MR. SIHOTA: Continuing the debate on this matter, let me just say — I'll take only 30 seconds — that shortly after the 1986 provincial election, there was an understanding around here that the people would try to improve the atmosphere in this House. Things were going quite well until the...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. SIHOTA: ...current Attorney-General....

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, it is my understanding that we are in committee stage of Bill 4. I've been in and out, listening here and in my office. In the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia, I would certainly appreciate it if members of the opposition would get on to the business of the House as we should be and deal with this bill as we should be, not play games at the expense of the taxpayers. Please take that to heart, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the information and the guidance that come from all members of both sides of this House, but the point made by the hon. member just preceding has already been made by the Chair on a number of occasions. The fractiousness of this debate is certainly not serving the people of this province well, and I would suggest we get back to what we're here for: debating the committee stage of Bill 4. We're on section 1.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between the Attorney-General of British Columbia and the fractious nature of debate in the Legislature.

The legislative committee looking at early retirement of judges made a number of points, some of

[ Page 9716 ]

which have been incorporated in this legislation and some of which have not. I want to ask the Attorney-General a number of things that flow from the recommendations of that committee which, as I said earlier, was struck by the former Attorney-General.

I'm just waiting for the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I've called order four times.

MR. SIHOTA: Last year it was "baa"; this year it's "aye, aye." The thing is, those guys over there just want to heckle and get out for the weekend.

The recommendations of the legislative committee taking a look at pensions included a number of matters. I thought it would be appropriate at this stage to go through those and see whether they're incorporated in this section.

Recommendation No. 6 of that committee was that the contribution level to the pension plan by Provincial Court judges remain at 7 percent of earned salary. Does this section allow for that recommendation to be in place?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, as I have said — this will be the fourth time — to the member, this bill is not part of the recommendations that came out of the committee's work.

MR. SIHOTA: That may be the point. I think that we were saying at the opening of this debate, which I thought the Attorney-General....

MR. RABBITT: Get your hands out of your pockets.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member for Yale-Lillooet wants to enter the debate, he can put up his mike and enter the debate, Mr. Chairman. But right now I've got the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If hon. members insist on interjecting and speaking across the House, I would suggest that perhaps they might step out into the hall and do their talking out there. That comment applies to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) as well.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the Attorney-General's response gets to the very point that I was trying to make: namely, that the recommendations of the legislative committee.... It's a laudable process to refer these matters to a legislative committee. It would seem to me that what one would want to do is reflect those recommendations, and of course that doesn't seem to have happened in that case.

Recommendation No. 7 was that pension benefit calculations for Provincial Court judges be based on the best three years of earnings rather than the current five-year average. I take it that this section here deals with different matters....

[12:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, on — I think — a point of order, there have been half a dozen occasions in the last week when the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) has risen with the brilliantly insightful comment: "Get your hands out of your pockets." Would you advise members of this chamber whether that comment is as lunatic and silly and frivolous as we think, or whether there actually is a point of order embedded therein?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me start by saying that the only time that these things occur is when we have interjections during the course of a debate when someone is standing and talking. It comes from different places within the House — maybe from some places more than others, but it's difficult to pinpoint any one place where it might come from. It's completely uncalled for. It adds nothing to the debate and just delays the proceedings of the House.

So might I ask once more, in my usual mild, nice kind of way, that the members attending the House at this particular point in time refrain from making interjections, which interfere with the debate. Then we will accomplish, perhaps by the middle of next week, the completion of Bill 4, section 1, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, in your usual mild, nice, quiet-mannered and certainly well-respected way, would you be good enough to give us guidance. I asked a very direct question that I think is in order. Is the point that has been made consistently, which does indeed interrupt the flow of debate and the progress of this House...? Is that point in order, or is it as frivolous and foolish as we think?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me say this. There are a lot of comments made in here that are probably on the very edge of being unparliamentary, but it is sometimes difficult to deliberate quickly in one's mind what is and what isn't. You can refer to Sir Erskine May and to other sources of information, and you

[ Page 9717 ]

will find a list of unparliamentary words three times as long as your arm. I can't really see that removing one's hands from one's pockets or putting one's hands in one's pockets should even have the dignity of being placed among words that are unparliamentary.

MR. SIHOTA: I find it frustrating that the member for Yale-Lillooet doesn't have the wherewithal to get into this debate, but somehow thinks it's a reflection of his manliness if he can sit there and make those kinds of comments.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, I've been following the debate in the House, and if the members are going to debate within the rules of parliamentary procedure, which are supposed to be known to all the members of the House, then I would love to sit here and learn something from it. But I've heard the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew talk about just about everything else but Bill 4. I ask you to call that member to order and make him discuss the matter that's before the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will continue and will be relevant to section 1 of the bill.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Have you settled down now?

The recommendation I was talking about was a recommendation flowing from the legislative committee on labour and justice. I hope the member for Yale-Lillooet, as I speak slowly, will now start to learn something about early retirement, about judges.

MR. BLENCOE: He will soon know about early retirement.

MR. SIHOTA: He will become an expert on early retirement soon.

The members of the House should understand that the legislative committee took a look at matters of pensions and early retirement as it relates to Provincial Court judges. It made a number of recommendations. Recommendation No. 5 was that the administration of pension benefits for Provincial Court judges remain under the Pension (Public Service) Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, as modified by the provisions of the Provincial Court Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Perhaps the member for Yale-Lillooet should revise his understanding of that provision.

Recommendation No. 6 was that the contribution level to the pension plan by Provincial Court judges remain at 7 percent of earned salary.

Recommendation No. 7 said that pension benefit calculations for Provincial Court judges should be based on the best three years of earnings rather than the current five-year average.

Could the Attorney-General, now that it's quiet in here...? I'll wait for the other members to pay attention, because I will be asking the Attorney-General the following question. It's very straightforward. I want the member for Yale-Lillooet to take notes.

The pension benefit calculation was laid out as recommendation No. 7. Is that reflected in the legislation, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said earlier, it's very easy to understand why the Leader of the Opposition feels constrained to be recruiting lawyers to be candidates for the NDP, because he's been getting his advice from this legal pinhead from Esquimalt for about three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Attorney, that remark is completely unacceptable, and I would ask you to withdraw it, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll withdraw "legal."

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Attorney, that's not good enough.

HON. MR. SMITH: Then I'll withdraw whatever offends the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment.... Please take your seats. It seems to me I heard the word "pinhead." I would like that withdrawn.

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said, whatever offends the House I do without hesitation withdraw.

Again, I know the opposition's purpose is to waste the time of the House this morning. I also know that the judiciary is awaiting the passage of this bill, because it is time-limited and they have to make their plans. Of course, they should know that the reason for its not being able to get through committee a second time is the efforts of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, the first time being through the breach of agreement between House Leaders and the denial of leave in the House.

The answer to the member's question is, generally no. This particular matter has a one-year period rather than a three-year period as is recommended. It's an augmentation of the provisions that are being canvassed as a result of the committee's report to the House.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General made some comments about the Leader of the Opposition. I must say that I feel for the Premier, who had to make a choice between the member from North Vancouver and the member from Kamloops in terms of who he should select as Attorney-General. I know it was a

[ Page 9718 ]

tough choice for him. In some ways, I'm sure, he has his regrets.

Secondly, let me say that the Attorney-General has argued that this is a matter of urgency. Let's not forget, it was this government that chose not to call back the House until April 6. You could have called us back in February; you could have called us back in March. You know, the old days in the back rooms encouraged some to make sure that the House was called back in April.

MR. RABBITT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I regret to have to rise constantly to ask you to bring that member back to order. Whether or not this session was brought back has nothing to do with Bill 4, and I would ask you to bring the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to order and to ask him to speak to Bill 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you know full well that a comment from one side of the House is going to elicit a response from the other. If we on both sides of the House could bring ourselves to restrict those comments we make to matters that are completely pertinent to the business before the House, it would not be necessary for anyone to rise to their feet and bring points of order to the attention of the Chair. It seems that this morning, particularly, we're having this problem.

I should remind hon. members that I am just a servant of this House; I'm here to serve you. You write the rules, and I try to keep you within the bounds of the rules that have been written. If you want to turn this House into some kind of circus, I suppose that's entirely up to you. We're making a very good attempt at it this morning, I might say.

We're not doing the business of this House any good at all by constantly rising to our feet and finding points of order. I don't say this just for the benefit of the member for Yale-Lillooet; I say it for the benefit of all those who have risen on points of order this morning. One or two of them have been good points of order, but the majority of them have been specious. I would just remind you of this and say that we should continue this debate in a calm, cool and quiet way, so that we may do the business of the people of British Columbia in the most efficient way possible.

Having said that, we'll go back to section 1 of Bill 4.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of those comments, I will not respond to the member for Yale-Lillooet. I won't even say what I've been advised to say; I will stick to the point here.

The point is very simple, and I will again put it to the Attorney-General who will now, I'm sure, be mindful of the comments of the Chair. Could he advise the House of the reasons that in the introduction of this legislation, the government chose to bypass recommendation No. 7 of the committee, which the former Attorney-General had set up and participated in, and instead place a provision in this section that deviates from that recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, let me say it really slowly, so that the member can understand it. Recommendation No. 7, to which he refers, from the committee, I have now said six times is before the executive council and is being dealt with. Part of the recommendations have been dealt with; part have not.

Recommendation 7, to which he referred, says the following: "Pension benefit calculations for Provincial Court judges should be based on the best three years of earnings rather than the current five-year average." Had the member troubled himself to read the bill that is before him, he would find that it deals with the best single year's earnings. It is a separate matter; it is an augmentation of the recommendations of the committee. It is time-limited between February and October.

[12:30]

A number of members of the judiciary are awaiting passage of this bill so they can make decisions for themselves and their families. This special arrangement was entered into following consultation between the Attorney-General and a convention of the judiciary, as well as the senior judicial officers, the chief judge of the province of British Columbia and others.

To reiterate the point for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew for the seventh time, the committee, of which he was a member, reported to the House and made a number of recommendations related to compensation of the Provincial Court judiciary. As well, those recommendations, in the usual course of events, are now going through the process. Further, some of them have already been implemented and others are in the process of being implemented.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in Bill 4 we have brought before the House an augmented pension plan for members of the judiciary. They are awaiting the indulgence of the House to have it passed. Neither I nor they expected that they would be used in quite the way that they have been, in terms of time. Nevertheless, when dealing with the opposition, it is difficult sometimes to predict the direction they will go.

MR. SIHOTA: We have a situation here that allows for some provisions to have been dealt with already, some provisions to be dealt with now, some provisions to be dealt with in the future. I say to the Attorney-General that I'm at a loss to understand why he was not able to direct his ministry to get their act together and do the whole bundle in one shot — so that we knew whether or not the government intended to enact the recommendations in their totality or in part. I think that's a legitimate question.

We have three different processes in place. The question still remains as to why the government did not, from an administrative point of view, deal with the whole bundle at one shot. Maybe the Attorney-

[ Page 9719 ]

General can provide us with an explanation as to that question.

HON. MR. SMITH: I provided the explanation to that question to the extremely succinct and intelligent question that was put to me in second reading by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and in answer to the questions today from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). I know the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew does have difficulty grasping concepts. I really don't think I should waste the time of the House further by answering the same question I don't know how many times. I know the member is on a day off from his full-time law practice to be here with us, but I don't think I should waste the House's time in that regard.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, obviously the Attorney-General is not mindful of the comments that the Chair made earlier. He knows that if he wants to get into that kind of game, then I can retort just as easily. He knows full well, Mr. Chairman — before the member for Yale-Lillooet springs to his feet — that I do not maintain a full-time law practice; that I do not practise at all except for one trial a year, and that's it. He knows that, so his standing up in this House to suggest that somehow I'm taking time away from a full-time law practice and appearing here in the Legislature to ask him some questions is just another example of the mischievous mentality that we see in the Attorney-General. It's another reflection of just how far we've come from the behaviour of his predecessor — the contemptible behaviour of this Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw the word "contemptible."

MR. SIHOTA: Fine, Mr. Chairman; I withdraw the word "contemptible." The point remains that we've come a long way, because this Attorney-General has a different way of operating than his predecessors, and pays a lot less respect to this chamber than those who came before him.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, he says he just pays a lot less respect to me than others have. That again is telling in terms of the extent to which the Attorney-General sees issues along personality and finds it so difficult to do what his predecessor did, who could separate personality from policy. You know, it's typical of the type of personal-attack orientation that we see from him and his Premier, and we saw it yesterday from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks).

Could the Attorney-General advise the House, then, as to why it was that the time-period that they've chosen was chosen? I ask that in reference to the date of October 31, 1990, which appears in the section.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member said earlier that he doesn't practise at all. I must say that, from my discussions with practitioners around Victoria, he'll get a lot of agreement.

The time was chosen after consultation with the judiciary.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General cannot resist the temptation to sweep his hand down into the gutter, find whatever residue he can come up with and chuck it across the floor. Again, it's in keeping with the type of juvenile approach he takes to debate.

A number of other issues arise from this legislation. I want to canvass them with the Attorney-General as well. He says that it was at the advice of the judiciary that the date of October 31, 1990, was arrived at. That's fine. Maybe he could tell us, then, what the expectation is under the provision for early retirement: namely, what is the expectation of the ministry with respect to the number of appointments that would become available by implementing this time-limited provision?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member asked if it was done at the advice of the judiciary. The answer is no. As I said earlier, it was done in consultation with....

MR. BLENCOE: My understanding is that there was an agreement that we would adjourn the House today at 12:40. I move that the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, if I might, before you adjourn the committee, I'd like to make an announcement in recognition of a special day and in recognition of the Punjab-Sikh-Indo-Canadian community of British Columbia. In June 1989, the lottery funds provided $20,000 in consideration — outside of existing guidelines — of providing an historic and educational video to commemorate the seventy-sixth anniversary of the Komagata Maru.

I'd like to announce to those members present and to those who may be listening on their boxes that the Komagata Maru Foundation of Canada cordially invites you and all your members to a video presentation of Komagata Maru: A Voyage of Shattered Dreams, in commemoration of the seventy-sixth anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, on Friday, May 18, from 5:30 to 7:30 at the Biltmore Hotel in Vancouver on Kingsway, at the invitation of Ms. Raminder Dosanjh and Ms. Balinder Johal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

You've all heard a motion made by...

HON. MR. SMITH: Point of order. There's no provision in our rules for a response other than by leave, but before the Chair there is a motion, in any event, about whether the House should rise. There

[ Page 9720 ]

was an earlier agreement that this bill would be completed before the House rose today.

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order. The member for Surrey clearly made a statement, and I think it appropriate that this side of the House be allowed a response — particularly the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I think it's most unfortunate that the government side would deny that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is sort of an unprecedented situation, and I would ask leave for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to give a response.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank members of the House for granting leave.

I am well aware of the showing that will be occurring, and I know members of our caucus will be in attendance as well as members of the Social Credit caucus. I would hope that many members, particularly from that other caucus, will be in attendance, given the nature of the debate that took place in this House last year around that issue. It may be a reflection of the extent to which others have had an opportunity to look back on that debate and recognize the errors that were made then in terms of their handling of the matter and to show appropriate respect to the community by attending the function and demonstrating that indeed all members have come a long way in their understanding of the Komagata Maru and its historical significance.

[12:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

NAYS - 3

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant long weekend, whatever it is they're about to do.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.