[ Page 11877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act (Bill 86). Hon. Mrs. Gran

Introduction and first reading –– 11877

Tabling Documents –– 11877

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 89). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Introduction and first reading –– 11878

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Withdrawal –– 11878

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 95). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11878

Oral Questions

Special prosecutor's involvement in Fantasy Gardens investigation.

Mr. Sihota –– 11878

Mr. Harcourt

Premier and Fantasy Gardens investigation. Mr. Harcourt –– 11879

Gang violence in Vancouver. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11879

Premier and Fantasy Gardens investigation. Mr. Harcourt –– 11880

Sewage treatment in Victoria. Mr. Peterson –– 11880

Ms. Cull

Opinion polling by government. Mr. D'Arcy –– 11880

Ministerial Statements

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 11881

Mr. D'Arcy

Export of Water. Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11881

Mr. Cashore

Sale of radioisotope reactor. Hon. S. Hagen –– 11882

Mr. Jones

Property Rights Act (Bill 90). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 11883

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11885

Mr. Lovick –– 11888

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11889

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11891

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 91). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11891

Mr. Sihota –– 11891

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11892

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 85). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 11892

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Rdwards

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the visitors' gallery today is Roy Gardner, the vice-president of programming for BCTV, and his wife Vikki. Mr. Gardner is here today in his role as the president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters for a presentation recognizing the great success of the broadcasters' racial harmony public service ad campaign. I would ask the members to show their appreciation to the broadcasters of this province and to make Mr. and Mrs. Gardner welcome.

MS. MARZARI: In the gallery today is a very special person for all of us in this province. She has played a very important role in the development of social policy and advocacy for the poor, especially in Vancouver. Her outspokenness on food banks and poverty in this province is unparalleled. Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce to this House Miss Sylvia Russell.

MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today I have a visitor from Vancouver-Little Mountain who is an executive member of our constituency association, Everyone in our gallery will be very keenly interested in today's proceedings, but I don't think anybody will be more interested than Michael Blusson, a student at Hamber Secondary School and probably one of the most politically minded students of that school. Will the House please welcome him.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 50 grade 11 students from Centennial School in my constituency, along with their teacher Ms. Nancy Lutke. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. LOENEN. We're privileged to have two constituents with us this afternoon who are great supporters of our party. They are spending the day in Victoria, and I would ask the House to please welcome Yvonne Hawley and Frieda Giesler.

MS. A. HAGEN: Visiting in the buildings today are a number of people from the End Legislated Poverty group. I'd particularly like to introduce members of the forced employment committee: Theresa Tressider, Maureen Ahearn and Joan Shultz. Also present are members from the school food program committee: Anita Gingrich, Karen Shillington and Dorothy Livingstone. I welcome board members and staff of the End Legislated Poverty group to our buildings for meetings today. Would you join me in welcoming all those people.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery today are two individuals: Paul Morgan, who works in Victoria, and his father George Morgan, who is visiting us from London, England. Would the House please join me in welcoming them both.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this handsome dog sitting on the floor behind me is a former seatmate of mine, going back to 1968 when my hair was black and his was short, in the House of Commons. He's Lorne Nystrom, MP, longtime member for Yorkton-Melville. He's here in town today with the Senate-Commons committee studying ways to amend the constitution. We're pleased to see Lorne here; would the House welcome him as well.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the precincts today are two people who are very important in my life. With that short introduction, I'd like to introduce my mother, Mrs. W. Russell S. Fraser, who is celebrating her eighty-eighth birthday, and my wife Jone. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Oscar Alleuva is here visiting this House from the School of Social Work at UBC. He was here with his class yesterday and remains behind. Please welcome Oscar as a student watching how our system works.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Police Commission for the year 1989-90.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the Pacific National Exhibition for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN ACT

Hon. Mrs. Gran presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 86, the British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act. This legislation will establish a retirement savings plan that gives all British Columbians the opportunity to plan for retirement. I am tabling this bill in the form of an exposure bill so that all British Columbians will have an opportunity to review the proposal in detail and provide suggestions for the government's consideration.

The need for retirement protection was identified by many women during my provincial tour last year. This plan responds to that need and, in addition, reflects government's commitment to protect the future of British Columbia families. It's a voluntary plan available to every British Columbian from age 18 to 65.

This act speaks particularly to low-income parents — the majority women — who stay home to care for and raise young children, including foster children. These individuals will be able to join the plan with the help of an annual contribution grant from the government. We are able to introduce and implement this plan without increasing taxes by dedicating the

[ Page 11878 ]

investment income from the privatization benefits fund to cover the start-up costs and contribution grants for qualifying parents.

While the legislation contemplates voluntary participation in the plan, the government is also interested in obtaining the views of the public on the introduction of a compulsory retirement plan. I will consult with individuals, women's groups, the business community, labour and any other interested groups throughout the province on this important initiative.

In conclusion, this plan means small business, women and families will now be able to access and look forward to secure retirement benefits.

Bill 86 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.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

[2:15]

HON. MR. RABBITT: Bill 89 is a follow-up to the exposure Bill 44 which received first reading last June. I will be asking the House shortly for leave to withdraw the earlier exposure bill.

The exposure bill was modelled on Alberta's pension standards legislation. Many provisions of the bill are equal or similar to provisions in most other jurisdictions. Thanks to the thoughtful and constructive suggestions received from the community, we have made both wording and substance improvements to the exposure bill.

The new legislation will require employees to have five years' continuous service before they acquire vesting rights. In 1998, plan members will receive vesting rights in two years, based on plan membership. Bill 89 improves survivor benefits, makes pensions more portable and improves the supervision of pension plans.

The bill imposes a moratorium on contribution holidays or withdrawal of surplus from B.C. plans until a new arbitration provision comes into force. That moratorium is effective today. Draft regulations will be released for public comment at a later date.

Bill 89 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. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Bill 44, Pension Benefits Standards Act, standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

Leave granted.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Bill 95 amends the Range Act to enable the government to better administer the Crown range resource. It clarifies the rights of tenure-holders to compensation for use of their tenure area, and in cases where their tenure boundaries are changed. Specifically, the bill clarifies the provisions in the Range Act regarding the compensation payable in respect of a past use by the government of Crown range subject to a grazing or hay-cutting tenure. It enables the tenure to remain with the base ranch property in the event of a lease or sale of the property expiring, or not completing, or where the property is foreclosed on. It vests the power to change a tenure boundary in the regional manager and clarifies the procedure by which notice of a boundary change is given. It provides for an appeal of the regional manager's decision to change a boundary to the minister or a person designated in writing by the minister. It increases the compensation payable to a tenure-holder for an improvement lost because of a boundary change, and it compensates a tenure-holder for improvements the holder must construct because of a boundary change.

Bill 95 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S INVOLVEMENT
IN FANTASY GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: Will the Attorney-General confirm to this House that a special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the matter of the Premier and others in relation to the sale of Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MR. FRASER: As the member knows, Mr. Speaker, in harmony with the recommendations of the Owen report, we have made public the fact that there is a special prosecutor in this investigation, that there is an investigation and that it is being handled by the RCMP. The reasons for this are quite simple. The idea of being absolutely clear about whether there was political interference had to be settled, and consequently was taken out of the investigative hands of the Financial Institutions Commission and moved laterally to the RCMP, because the Financial Institutions Commission is a branch of government. It's a horizontal move, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I regret that it has been made public, for one of the things you want to avoid in any investigation is that it could be compromised by public knowledge, and this one I hope has not been. The other thing is that you do not want to impair or necessarily harm the reputation of innocent people. For those two

[ Page 11879 ]

compelling reasons, most investigations are not a matter of public knowledge. However, as I said, in light of the Owen report and the fact that it is widely known, we have confirmed that that is the case.

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to thank the minister for that confirmation. In his comments the minister referred to the provisions of the Owen report. Will the minister confirm to the House that a special prosecutor has been appointed pursuant to recommendation 9 of the ombudsman's report?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I've already done that, but in case you didn't hear, I will confirm that it has been done and that it was done on March 8.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the minister is confirming that it was done pursuant to recommendation 9.

Mr. Speaker, recommendation 9 says "...that a special prosecutor be appointed in all cases where there is a significant potential for real or perceived improper influence in the administration of criminal justice " Given that recommendation 9 is seemingly triggered in cases involving criminal justice, does the scope of this investigation include a criminal investigation?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, what worries me about the line of questioning we seem to be following all of a sudden is that there's a move into the area that there's something untoward about an investigation.

The thrust of the Owen report, as I read it, was that in the event that some person of high profile — be that any person, a member of this House or somebody else of high profile — was involved, it was important to make sure that everything was done fairly, that the results were presented fairly and that the consequence of anything done was fair.

It strikes me that the questions going down the line are somewhat different than that. As a consequence, I'm not going to make any comment about that particular question. What I want to make clear is that we are confirming there is an investigation, we're confirming why the RCMP are involved and we are confirming that there is a special prosecutor — and that's it.

MR. HARCOURT: Given that the special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate real estate transactions involving the Premier, has the Premier now decided to step aside pending the outcome of the investigation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as I've previously said publicly, even if all of the allegations that have been out there — some of which we've heard in the House indirectly or otherwise — were true, which they're not, there's nothing criminal.

I'm perhaps not surprised, but disappointed, that this line of questioning continues from the Leader of the Opposition and others, because I think it's purely for political gain. I frankly despise those who would use this House to put the impression out there or to have some believe that there was some guilt before anything was done by the line of questioning

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is very difficult for the Chair. Under normal circumstances, question period is relatively easy for the Chair to handle, because if there's a debate, we can hold it over, or if there's a question where I need a ruling.... But I've got to be very clear about imputing any motives on either side of this matter. I would ask that questions be direct and that answers directly respond to questions, rather than having it broadened from that. While this issue is the subject of investigation by a number of other people, certainly the Speaker doesn't wish to be involved in doing it during question period.

I'll accept the next question.

PREMIER AND FANTASY
GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. HARCOURT: Seven of the 11 ministers who have left the cabinet have done so in the context of such investigations. The Premier and his government must understand that they are not above the law. I have a question to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General advised the Premier of his obligation to step aside pending the outcome of these investigations?

GANG VIOLENCE IN VANCOUVER

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Attorney-General. Last evening, a resident of Vancouver Little Mountain was gunned down outside his home. The press reports indicate it was a drug-related murder and possibly a gangland slaying. The people of Vancouver are very concerned about the growing incidence of street gangs and violence in the city of Vancouver. Will the Attorney-General undertake to meet with the mayor of Vancouver and the chief of police of Vancouver to explore ways in which our government and his ministry can assure the city of Vancouver's citizens, our constituency and this House that the ultimate is being done in coordination by this government and his ministry to absolutely ensure that we address this problem on behalf of the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial statements and members' statements are on Friday. The Attorney-General may wish to answer.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the assembly and as one who also comes from the city of Vancouver, I am well aware of some of the problems and am as deeply concerned about it as you are, Madam Member. I'm sure every member in the House is, including members of the opposition who happen to come from the city of Vancouver.

[ Page 11880 ]

While we know that crime is not related to any one specific region in the province, we are concerned about the possible rising level of crime in the city and the level of violence as well. Because of that concern, other governments before this one moved to resolve some of the issues at hand.

As a consequence of your question, and certainly in the spirit that we want to make sure that law and order is the order of the day in British Columbia, I'd be happy to give the assurance that I will meet with the mayor of the city of Vancouver, and with the chief of police as well, to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to ensure that our streets are safe.

PREMIER AND FANTASY
GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. HARCOURT: In regard to the special prosecutor and the investigation, it's a matter that goes beyond the integrity of the office of Premier?

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN VICTORIA

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In view of the Washington State senate's resolution to pursue the impact of Victoria's municipal sewage-dumping on their coast and waters, and in view of the great importance of cleaning up our waters and safeguarding the enormous value of B.C.'s reputation as a tourist destination, has the minister decided to meet with Washington State officials to ensure that the resolution of this issue is satisfactory to all — both here and in Washington State — who express concern?

HON. MR. SERWA: It's really a pleasure to get a question on an environmental issue, which is a prime-time topic. I deplore the lack of interest from the members opposite, but I compliment the member for the question. I was feeling like the Maytag repairman over here.

[2:30]

The question is a very valid one. It's a very important one, and it's very high-profile and topical, certainly here and internationally. We have had letters from the state legislature in Washington and the Governor. I have met with representatives of the Capital Regional District on this matter, and I will be meeting later on this afternoon with the consul-general of the United States, Mr. David Johnson, and we will be discussing a multitude of environmental issues. Certainly the sewage issue is one that we will be discussing. We will be discussing oil spills as well, which is terribly important to the strait of Juan de Fuca and to us here....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer is beyond the scope of the question.

MS. CULL: To the Minister of Environment. In the light of his new-found concern for the sewage problem in the Victoria area, I wonder if he could confirm to the House that he is going back on the commitment the former Minister of Environment made to provide 75 percent funding for sewage treatment in Victoria.

HON. MR. SERWA: The research that the members opposite seem to delve into is rumour and hearsay, and perhaps the odd newspaper article. The member for Esquimalt asked a similar question the other day. There are realities, and one of the realities in the province is that all British Columbians are treated equally.

There are funding assistance opportunities under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs which will provide different levels of funding assistance for sewage projects — 25 percent, 50 percent. The Ministry of Environment has a special fund with the sum of some $3 million at the present time for either high-cost or innovative sewage projects.

At the present time we have increased — hon. members opposite, if you'd care to pay attention — in conjunction with the recent announcement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... Two years ago there was some $35 million in the revenue-sharing fund for such capital projects as sewer and water. We increased that to $65 million last year and, in a recent announcement on March 19, that was increased to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Once again, the question and the answer have to be related a little more distinctly than they are there.

OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had a tag-team match going there for a moment.

To my friend the Provincial Secretary. The government has stated many times over the past four years that it didn't believe in making policy as a result of polls, and yet the public accounts show that over half a million dollars of taxpayers' funds a year in the first three fiscal years of the government was spent on polling. Rough estimates of this current fiscal year would seem to indicate that considerably more money has been spent. Can the minister give some indication to the public of British Columbia how many of their tax dollars — either a general estimate or something more specific — have been spent on public opinion sampling during the fiscal year which will end in a few days' time?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a perfect question for the order paper.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In keeping with your admonition a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I'll keep my answer very short.

One of the things that this government has believed in is open government, and certainly in order to sample how our programs are affecting the public

[ Page 11881 ]

it is necessary to get that input. But as to the specific amount spent in the last fiscal year, I'll certainly bring back art accurate answer in due time.

MR. D'ARCY: Now that the minister has conceded that the government has been doing quite a bit of polling, in the interests of freedom of information would he be prepared to let the people of British Columbia know what information has been bought with their tax dollars to provide all of this information to government?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your admonition a little earlier, I believe a written report or a written statement to the member would be the best way to answer that question.

Ministerial Statements

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

HON. MR. DIRKS: Our government has proclaimed today International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We all know that environmental issues — the quality of our air, the water that we drink and the land resources — are of great concern to British Columbians, and with very good reason. But there's an element to our environment of special importance today, and that element is the human environment.

We in British Columbia live in a multicultural society. We have always had a mix of nationalities. But now that diversity is increasing. With that cultural mix comes a responsibility for all of us to respect the traditions and heritage brought to British Columbia by newcomers over the years. It is important that we understand and appreciate this racial and cultural diversity and work to eliminate the negative side — racism and racial discrimination.

This process of mutual recognition and respect enriches our society and makes British Columbia a better place to live. Proclaiming a special day — International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to achieving that goal and creating a healthy human environment.

I hope all British Columbians will reflect on this matter today and recommit themselves to the open and accepting values we all want to share with our children.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the remarks of the Provincial Secretary, I would like to note that while overt and obvious discrimination — racial or any other — can be addressed through legislation, attitudes about discrimination take a lot more effort. It's something we really, as a society and as individuals, can never give up on. The only way you eliminate discriminatory attitudes is through understanding, through knowledge and through getting people together so that instead of fearing or resenting racial or cultural differences, all of us realize just how well we can be enriched by and how much pleasure we can take in the tremendous diversity and interests we. have out there and the many facets of our society.

We join with the government in recognizing this day and in knowing that there are no plateaus here. Discrimination of all sorts has to be fought attitudinally on a continuous basis all through our lives.

EXPORT OF WATER

HON. MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks considerable interest has been generated around the subject of the export of bulk water from the province of British Columbia. In light of that concern, our government is determined that the full implications of bulk water exports should be examined thoroughly and objectively.

Accordingly, I announced publicly yesterday morning that no further water export licences will be issued until after June 30, 1991. During this period, a review of British Columbia's bulk water export policy will be carried out to ensure it adequately protects our province's interests now and in the future.

The implementation of this policy review, which will look carefully at all of the options with respect to the bulk export of water, was a principal recommendation of the interministry task force that has met over the past two months. The review will be carried out by a panel chaired by Mr. Jim Carter, a well-respected consultant to government. Mr. Carter's comprehensive background and qualifications will ensure that this review is handled in a timely, thoughtful and professional manner. The policy review committee will consist of representatives from the Ministries of Environment, International Business and lmmigration, Native Affairs, Crown Lands, and Agriculture and Fisheries.

The terms of reference for the policy review will include issues such as: the effects, if any, of the GATT and the free trade agreement; royalty and other revenue issues; the sources of water supply; environmental impacts, including any possible cumulative effects; and the necessary terms or conditions required for future water export licences.

The review process will include a workshop with water experts and stakeholders from across the province. In addition to this process, the public will also have ample opportunity to provide input to the policy review. I believe that this policy review will provide us with the information needed to ensure that any allocations of bulk water for export purposes are carried out in full consideration of the interests of British Columbians and, most importantly, the environment.

MR. CASHORE: I want to thank the minister for this initiative, which is long overdue. I'm very glad that it's taking place.

I wish to affirm the appointment of Mr. Jim Carter. I expect that he will do a good job. I regret, though, that Mr. Carter will not have a very long time in which to conduct a very thorough review, because for the review to be thorough, it should involve a full

[ Page 11882 ]

public process with opportunity for public hearings. The public needs an opportunity to debate both the issues of water export and the environmental aspects. There should be intervener funding, and I commend that concern to the minister.

Further, Mr. Speaker, native people are a very important part of this, as is acknowledged. But I would suggest that there should be contact with the native community in person, not just through people who work within that ministry. To that end, I would suggest, as a start, Chief Arlene Hope of the Klahoose Indian band. Along with her council, she did an excellent job of researching this issue with regard to Toba Inlet. They have tremendous information which can be made available and can be very helpful to this process, and I think it would be very worthwhile to have a thorough consultation with these people.

Further, Mr. Speaker, we're concerned about such things as upstream resource users and forest practices. Just imagine the use of pesticides in a forest that's adjacent to a water export area, Also, we're concerned about the possibility of daily tanker traffic going into pristine inlets. For instance, the ballast water coming from other parts of the world and being pumped into those inlets makes us think that perhaps the zebra mussel concern on the east coast is mild. This would be a biodiversity that we would not want on our coast.

Finally, in fairness, there is an issue that I would like to raise regarding this. We have a concern with regard to the ability of Western Canada Water to export 43,000 acre-feet of water every year from Link Lake near Ocean Falls. The Ministry of Crown Lands holds the water licence and has a contractual arrangement with Western Canada Water. We think that those export licences would give this company a tremendous commercial advantage over all the other companies exploring this industry in the province. In addition, since the company gained access to the initial 43,000 acre-feet without any significant environmental impact studies, there are serious questions about whether Western Canada should be allowed to export that large amount of water at this time.

In conclusion, Western Canada Water should be included with all of the other companies affected by this review. They should not be given favourable treatment just because they were lucky enough to get in under the wire and get their application for 43,000 acre-feet approved in 1989.

SALE OF RADIOISOTOPE REACTOR

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a ministerial statement, as the minister responsible for the TRIUMF kaon project on the campus of the University of British Columbia, I wish to call the attention of the Legislature to a very important event which has just taken place. Yesterday we received word that Ebco Technologies of Richmond has been successful in securing the sale of a new TR30 radioisotope accelerator to the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research of Taipei, Taiwan. All members of this House, and indeed all British Columbians, can take pride in the fact that Ebco was victorious over companies from Belgium and Sweden.

Members will be aware that the TR30 cyclotron, pioneered in conjunction with the scientists at the TRIUMF research facility at UBC, last year won the award as B.C.'s innovation of the year. The TR30 accelerator produces medical isotopes that are used in diagnosing various illnesses such as cancer. Like TRIUMF's remarkable pion cancer therapy and other leading innovations, the TR30 is Canadian science and technology excellence in action.

[2:45]

As minister responsible for the project, I want to congratulate both TRIUMF and Ebco on this important milestone. It is proof of the technology-transfer capabilities of the new TRIUMF kaon ventures office, which has been opened to drive TRIUMFs innovations from the laboratory to the global marketplace. Following the provincial government's financial guarantee for the development of the prototype accelerator, the first TR30 was purchased by Nordion International Inc. of Canada last year. This marks the first overseas sale of this exciting new technology. It's further proof of British Columbia's growing success in winning important new high-tech customers, especially in the competitive markets of the Pacific Rim. This $4 million project will be built in Richmond and will require the expertise of 100 Ebco employees. The global market for this technology is estimated at $100 million.

I share the confidence of those at TRIUMF and Ebco who believe we can use this success as a stepping-stone to winning a lion's share of this business for British Columbia.

All of this underlines the urgency of Canada's approval of the TRIUMF kaon project, which will build on innovations such as the TR30, giving British Columbia and Canada an important new competitive edge in science and technology. The TRIUMF kaon ventures office has been active in promoting the transfer of this and 50 other technologies to the private sector. Partnerships like these are essential for building the Canada of the twenty-first century. .

I urge all members of this House to call on Prime Minister Mulroney to commit the government of Canada to funding its share of the financing required to make the TRIUMF kaon project a reality.

MR. JONES: We on this side of the House certainly welcome the good news brought by the Minister of Education today, because we recognize that this province is certainly behind the times in developing the science and technology we need in the future for British Columbia and Canada.

Interjections,

MR. JONES: The members opposite clearly are not interested in sharing in the good news and treating it in the spirit of goodwill that it warrants.

We are behind, and this announcement today moves us marginally ahead. We know that science and technology in this country is behind other OECD

[ Page 11883 ]

countries. Any step that moves it forward is a good-news announcement, and we appreciate that.

We recognize, too, that we have to move beyond a reliance upon the natural resources and move towards human resources and environmentally clean resources. We must become more than hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have to move from a resource-based industry to a knowledge-based industry, and this announcement today, I think, assists in that.

We join the government in welcoming this news. We join the government in anxiously awaiting the government of Canada's long-overdue announcement in terms of the funding for the kaon project, and we hope that is a positive announcement too.

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services for the year ended March 31, 1990, and the annual report and financial statement of the liquor distribution branch for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 90, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to continue from where I left off at the luncheon break today. I was pointing out to the House that this topic deserves serious debate in terms of due process and its application to the denial of various rights. I was putting forward the proposition that this legislation before the House, apart from the fact that it is designed for a political purpose, does not have any substantive effect on the law. I laid out at the time the fact that the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the provisions of the Land Title Act and other statutory provisions and the common law provide significant protection to individuals who are denied the rights of property.

The theory there is the fact that the bill before the House will have no substantive effect on the law, given the state of the law in British Columbia today. On the other side of the coin, I may be wrong. It may have significant substantive effect. It may be interpreted by the courts to be more than I suggested at the outset it would be. I want to deal with that hypothesis as well and for the record make some comments with respect to the potential impact of this legislation and express my wish that the government has thought through the implications of this legislation, should the courts in this province decide to give — if I can put this way — a substantive spin to the legislation.

Other ministries should be aware of the implications of this legislation on their operations. For example, I see the Minister of Environment in the House today. If this law were to have a substantive reading to it by the courts, then it could have significant impact on a variety of activities and legislation governed and administered by the Ministry of Environment.

For example, the Ministry of Environment has significant powers in terms of water management, flood control, the power to set aside certain lands for wetlands and environmental protection, the power to deem that certain lands are necessary for flood control and other lands are necessary for erosions or that certain changes be made to land in order to prevent erosion before the land can be bought. Those are laws we've understood in this country and in this province as being good laws that are necessary for the common good and to enhance the environment.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the jurisdiction immediately to the south of us, where the courts have given a substantive spin or interpretation to this power, they have struck down laws governing wetlands, flood control and erosion. In the research of this matter, I could not help but be struck by Connecticut's Supreme Court decision in 1964, which reviewed the application of flood and erosion control legislation in that state. The court, in striking down that law, said: "Where most of the value of a person's property has to be sacrificed so that community welfare may be served, and where the owner does not directly benefit from the evil avoided, the occasion is appropriate for the exercise of eminent domain." In other words, it was quite proper for the courts to strike down that legislation,

I would hope that the Ministry of Environment has given some thought to the application of this legislation, in the event that the court would give it a substantive interpretation. I see the Minister of Environment is not listening; therefore I suspect he probably hasn't given much thought to this problem. Hopefully there will be some consideration with respect to his ministry's interpretation of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see the Minister of Highways here. Earlier on and through the course of this debate, I talked about the needed and appropriate due process provisions that are found in the Expropriation Act. But dealing with matters of highways and energy and with matters under the provisions of the Water Act, which deal with hydroelectric power in this province, there are no due process provisions allowed under the Expropriation Act with respect to expropriation under that legislation. There's a general clause that exempts various pieces of legislation from the provisions of the Expropriation Act, which sets out due process.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Should the courts interpret this legislation in a substantive way, then of course that legislation will be under attack. Again, I would hope those ministries — Highways and Energy — have given adequate thought to the application of this legislation and to the impact it will have on the administration of those pieces of legislation that are exempt under the provisions of the Expropriation Act. The need now with this legislation — the Property Rights Act — is to ensure there is due process with respect to loss of any

[ Page 11884 ]

rights of property that may flow from actions of the Ministry of Highways and Ministry of Environment that are not covered by the provisions of the Expropriation Act. There is a very important and very significant impact. Given the reasons behind the introduction of this legislation, perhaps adequate thought has not been given in that regard.

I don't see the Minister of Municipal Affairs....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You don't like that; you changed your mind.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier asks if I have changed my mind. No, I have not changed my mind in terms of support for the legislation.

I was pointing out that I hope this government has given adequate thought to the implications of the legislation it is bringing forward. I am serving notice to those ministers and to the Attorney-General that they can expect questions from this side of the House during committee stage on the implications.

In one obvious area — because, as the Premier wants to know, I have given thought.... That's reflected in the comments I am making during the course of this speech. The provisions to the Municipal Affairs ministry, the application of this law to zoning regulations and the experience to the south of us in the way in which the rights enumerated under the provisions of this act should have been interpreted in a substantive way have had an effect on zoning regulations in the United States. I don't need to cite all of the cases, but there are several cases in the United States beginning with a series of cases in Long Island that deal with the matter of municipal regulations and zoning: for example, saying that single-family zoning is not appropriate, that it is, in itself, a denial of the utilization of property and that it cannot be eliminated without due process.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier heckles that this is Canada, not the United States. That was precisely the point I was making this morning, had he been listening to what I was saying. The point I made this morning is that in Canada we have chosen a different path. In Canada the courts have chosen not to interfere in these matters, because we as legislators in this country —  in legislatures across the country — have incorporated due process provisions in specific statutes. I would hope that point will remain fixed in the Premier's mind.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Ministry of Parks has thought through the implications of this legislation. For example, we see today a dispute between the Capital Regional District and the people putting in the Vancouver Island gas pipeline with respect to the pipeline's decision to intrude upon provisions of the Galloping Goose park in the CRD and to place the pipeline therein without any due process. Again, there has to be due process essential to making sure that the interests and, the sanctity of those parks are protected, and that there is a resolution of the conflict that arises as a consequence of those actions.

Perhaps nowhere in any other area of the law may there end up being quite such a significant testing of this legislation than in the area of native law, where this legislation speaks about the right to use and enjoy property without the loss thereof and without the provisions of due process being in place.

Surely the native community of this province can make a compelling case that they have been denied the use of their property, and that due process has not been accorded to them with respect to the loss of that use, enjoyment and right. I hope that the Attorney General and the Minister of Native Affairs have consulted on this matter.

As I talked this morning about due process and about the Ministry of Attorney-General, I think it's important that the ministry give — indeed, I would hope it has given — consideration to the meaning of the due process provisions under this legislation and the way in which they may impact on that ministry.

For example, may I ask: who does due process apply to — only those who can afford to go to the courts? Surely it should apply to all British Columbians who see a loss of potential rights, be it personal or property rights. If that is the case — if that argument is correct.... It has been embraced by jurisdictions here in Canada — not at the national level — and certainly in the United States in the landmark case of Goldberg and Kelly, which said that poor people have the right to participate Iin the public process. That is the gist of that decision.

Has the Attorney-General's ministry considered the implications of this legislation on the legal aid programs that are offered in this province, or is it going to face the kind of situation it found with respect to immigration law, and the court demanding that the ministry make sure that funding is available to those who seek to protect their due process rights under immigration statute? It has significant impact on the programs operated by the Ministry of Attorney-General in the event that the courts say that due process rights should exist.

This government should be particularly sensitive to those arguments of the working poor in this province and the denial of access to the courts to assert their due process rights. This government has trampled on those rights in the past. I need to cite only one example: namely, the decision of this government to reduce welfare rates to single mothers by $50 per month — an arbitrary action taken without due process.

If we have in this province a history of ignoring the impact and the necessity for due process and denial of human and property rights, it seems to me that this government ought to be cognizant of the fact that it, by proceeding in this direction, may have significant implications with respect to the Ministry of Attorney-General and its legal aid funding.

[3:00]

I've touched on the substantive aspects rather quickly because I wanted to reserve some time for a far more important component of this debate, and

[ Page 11885 ]

that is the whole matter of judicial adventurism. There has been a lot of debate in this House as to the role of the courts vis-à-vis the roles of politicians and the ability of the courts, because of the provisions of the Charter of Rights, to intrude upon territory that has generally been reserved as a prerogative of politicians.

I think there is a healthy tension in this country with respect to that matter, and we have seen the courts in some instances intrude upon the powers of politicians. We see most recently the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench with respect to the electoral map decision. In the past, the argument has been that the courts have no right to intrude upon these matters which are the prerogative of the Legislature, and that the Legislature is supreme.

We have also seen, on the other side of the coin, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to mandatory retirement, and its decision not to interfere with the decisions made by the Legislature — by the elected officials of this province and of this nation.

This government, in terms of Brian Smith, the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and the former Attorney-General, has been quick to criticize the courts for their involvement in these types of matters and have been quick to criticize the whole matter of judicial adventurism. By introducing this legislation, if the legislation is interpreted in a substantive way, you are going to increase judicial adventurism.

Is that something that the government — soon to be opposition — wants to see? Is that a result that they favour? Surely this legislation stands in stark contrast and contradiction to the arguments that former Attorneys-General have made with respect to the need to limit judicial adventurism. This legislation increases judicial adventurism.

In conclusion, let me say that what we're talking about here is rights. I think there should be a serious debate with respect to rights, not debate full of rhetoric, as I think the government had hoped to trigger in this case. That's why I've presented my case in the fashion that I have. We should have a broad discussion on rights.

After all, this is a government that has shown little homage, little attention and little concern to the rights of individuals. When a Highways worker in this province criticized the privatization program, he was fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this province? When young people were protesting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, but time has expired under standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I then conclude....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you designated speaker?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to the articulation of these rights, I point out that this government has paid little attention and attached little value to the rights of individuals in this province. As I said, when a Highways worker in this province criticized the privatization program, he was fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this province? Mr. Speaker, when young people protested on the steps of this Legislature and engaged in certain activity, they were removed from the steps in a very ugly incident. That happened in April 1987, shortly after we were elected. Whatever happened to freedom of assembly in a free and democratic society?

This government is always critical of the role of the media and wishes the media would articulate only the line that the government advocates. But you have to respect freedom of the press in a society. In a similar fashion, we have to deal properly and sensibly with the matter of the rights of property and the freedom to use and enjoy property and not to be denied use thereof without being accorded due process.

I think we should have a serious and rational debate about that kind of stuff. We should have a very open debate about rights and judicial adventurism and the substantive and non-substantive effect of this legislation. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that we won't see that from the members opposite, because I dare say there are other intentions behind their bringing this piece of legislation before the House.

Let me finally say this. It is my view — and this is why this legislation is being supported on this side — that (1) one cannot argue with the need for due process — we support that and we'll continue to support it; (2) these provisions will be read in a non-substantive way, and therefore we will continue to enjoy the rights that we already have in British Columbia, notwithstanding this legislation; (3) it seems to me impossible that the Attorney-General of this province did not get advice that was consistent with the interpretation that I've just advanced. He knows full well that this law will have very little substantive effect on the interpretation of statutes in this province — which of course again exposes the intentions of the government in bringing forward this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members once again practice recommendation No. 9, which is in the back of our Standing Orders and which reads: "A member who wishes to speak as designated member should advise the Chair as early as possible after the commencement of his or her speech." Just for everyone's edification.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation, which I believe to be the best in the country and certainly a forerunner for what I'm sure we'll see in other provinces soon.

[ Page 11886 ]

I'd like to talk about the legislation and why the need for it, but I'm reminded of this somewhat when I hear the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. He stood up and said this legislation is part of some political agenda. Then he went on to talk about rights and due process. He was really dwelling on rights and due process. I'm wondering if the member really considered such, and how seriously we can take those words, when we all recall what happened in this House when he took tapes and made them available publicly, and as a result of these tapes there was a recommendation from the police that criminal charges be laid against that member. Mr. Speaker, it makes one wonder when we listen to words about rights and due process from someone like the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and we consider what he thought to be due process and how he viewed the rights of others.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Premier...

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: But we can talk about rights and we can talk about this legislation, because the member talked about rights and due process, and I simply wanted to elaborate on that some.

Let's just consider why such legislation is much required. I was reminded recently, when I heard from those who are still awaiting a settlement with respect to their property rights with the taking of South Moresby for a national park. It was an act in good faith, we believed, between the federal government and the province after pressure from all over the country and beyond to see this area established as a park. I'm sure all members could argue the desirability of such a beautiful park in our country. But in the process — the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew made no mention of this, and I'm sure that for reasons that are reasonably obvious to me, he must be well aware of it — the rights of people were really trampled upon, and nothing has been done yet to rectify that situation.

I am reminded of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition not so long ago when all of us were seriously discussing what we in government should do with respect to settling the outstanding issues between, native people, the province and the country. In no time, of course, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said: "We, the NDP, will recognize aboriginal title." Then he pursued it a little further by suggesting that if, as some were suggesting, there was a cost of $8 billion to $12 billion involved — if the NDP were to somehow have a say In that issue — they would commit to picking up at least 25 percent of that cost, when we all knew it to be a federal responsibility, because the federal government had dealt with it in that way elsewhere. He said that the provincial taxpayer would pick up a huge chunk of that cost. That was before any negotiation took place with the federal government; he was already committed to giving away billions of dollars.

I take you back to the statement that the NDP would recognize aboriginal title. The question as to what was meant by aboriginal title was asked by many, me included. No one really had an answer. The Leader of the Opposition said something like; "We'll find out in due time." He didn't know exactly what it was, but he didn't think it was anything like what was being suggested by Saul Terry and some others, who said. "Lock, stock and barrel — all of the land. We'll simply negotiate what will remain for the rest of the B.C. population."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all of the people in this province who have held their own land, home, lot, property, farm or tenure — wherever, whatever — were very concerned at that time as to how their rights might be protected as well. This bill recognizes that. This bill recognizes that all of the people, whether they live in the city of Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the Okanagan or the Peace River, have a right to see their property protected. They can have some confidence, I'm convinced, in the knowledge that a government has at least moved to bring in legislation which will afford them that protection.

I can quote some of the statements that are perhaps of similar concern to many people throughout this province when they consider the meaning of property rights and how they might be understood by some — particularly the NDP I remind everyone of a statement made by the member for North Island when he was a member of government some time back. His statement was: "Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately."

[3:15]

Perhaps we can all be reminded as well that the NDP voted against entrenching property rights in the constitution. The quote from the member for Nanaimo in 1988 — I remind the member opposite of this — was: "We did so primarily because entrenchment would seriously impair governments ability to govern." Again, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew made reference to that.

MR. LOVICK: Do you deny that? Do you understand the principle?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member for Nanaimo is now getting very upset, because he recognizes that he has been caught by his own statement from 1988, when he obviously was of the view — and continues to be, I gather, from the reaction I'm getting — that government is much more important than the individual; "Heaven forbid that government should somehow be inconvenienced! Heaven forbid that we as a government — particularly if we the NDP should somehow be government — should be denied the opportunity to move in on somebody's property right now!" Whether it be tenure, personal property, their lot, their farm or their acreage — wherever it might be — the NDP, according to the member for Nanaimo, would always recognize that governments should not be inconvenienced in dealing with those rights of individuals that potentially...or perhaps the ability to govern, the ability of government to do what it would like to do

[ Page 11887 ]

might somehow be impaired. That's why, in 1988, the member was against anything that would somehow entrench the rights of property.

Now it's 1991, and we've seen it in this House for the last several weeks. They agree with all that the government is doing. They get up and support every piece of legislation. They provide the odd qualification here and there, but, you see, they see an election in the offing, and they would like to camouflage their true colours, camouflage what they stand for. But we'll remind the people, and again this is an opportunity, because the second member for Cariboo knows that if they could take away tenure or take away that which the people of the Cariboo treasure and hold dear — their land, their rights — the NDP would recall what was said by the NDP member for Nanaimo: "Do not inconvenience government."

That's what this bill is all about. It says that the individual and the individual's right to property are more important than a government's desire to do whatever it wishes as big government.

Let me remind the House as well, Mr. Speaker, of a statement in The Democrat, the paper put out by the NDP. It was a writing by Crawford Kilian, who also writes for one of the newspapers. He said: "We are loudly and eloquently against things. Maybe all we really wanted was a safe job, a boat in the carport, a big TV, a house with a manageable mortgage, and a good opinion of ourselves as right-thinking, upstanding social democrats." There's a statement which most could agree with, but it's so contradictory to what we've heard said by the members in the House. The Leader of the Opposition said in 1976: "The single-family house is as dead as a dodo." I wonder who's the dodo. Single-family dwellings, I would remind the members opposite, are extremely important to those who have them. It's the most important thing, and that's what this bill is protecting.

Then the member for Victoria — who's shouting across the floor — brought down some legislation which, fortunately for the people of this province, did not see the light of day and hopefully will never see it. It again is a good example of what the NDP would like to see done in this province and of how much respect that member and those members opposite have for the rights of property.

His attack in the act was that he would tell owners.... I will refer to the act: An Act to Provide for Rent Stabilization. I would suggest that all of those viewing this program today on their television — and I'm hoping there are many....

AN HON. MEMBER: All five of them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, there are more than five, hon. member. Have some respect for the people and their desire to know what is taking place in this House.

If you read this act — and I've referred to its name so that all can find it and refer to it — it says that what they would control might be what a person could charge regardless of true costs and market conditions. According to the member for Victoria and the NDP, they should have the power to control what anyone might charge. Talk about big government and its rights over those of the individual. There's an example spelled out in a bill presented by the member for Victoria. How much respect do you have, hon. member, for the rights of those people who have those properties? The bill went so far as to suggest that the government should even have control over when and what they could repair, and who they might or might not rent to. That's how they view property rights.

I guess we're reminded as well by the first member for Vancouver East, who in 1972 bought six rental units for $77,000, renovated them, and then flipped them a few months later for $127,000 — a price hike of 65 percent. When he was asked why it was or what it was, his answer was: "Well, they can buy a better house or get out." Now I know why that member for Vancouver East is getting out. Now we know why he's getting out.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I say this because it so clearly shows what we've been hearing in this House from the members opposite. They're trying to cover up, trying to put on their different colours — their camouflage. But they've not changed a bit. The statements and the evidence, from as recently as when the member for Victoria introduced this legislation, are all evidence of that.

The Leader of the Opposition said some years back: "If elected, the NDP would pursue changes to the capital gains tax formula. The federal government has jurisdiction on the capital gains. It's 50 percent now, and I'm saying it should be 100 percent." That's what they view to be property rights. Take 100 percent of whatever it is that a person might have gained through their efforts, through their investment, through their holding of a property, through their maintaining their right. "Ah, " says the NDP Leader of the Opposition, "now I view it as that they do have a right to hold the property." But he hasn't made reference to, nor have we heard any members opposite make any mention of, the fact that if they had the opportunity they would take that person's right to hold property and turn it into a government grab the moment they had the opportunity if that person wished to somehow dispose of that property.

Mr. Speaker, they speak with forked tongues. They have different messages at different times depending on the audience. Now, of course, we know the message is because of the times. If they can somehow not only put on the powder as we see it every time the TV cameras are turned on them, not only dress up as we see it now, but if they can at the same time camouflage what they really believe, and what they would really intend to do, that's their objective for now. That's what they're trying to do. I'm saying the people of this province will not be fooled by that. They know the actions of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. They know his reputation when he talks about rights and due process. They know how he views rights, and what he thinks due process ought to be.

[ Page 11888 ]

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a degree of protection we've not seen before in the country. It's highly overdue and necessary. I'm proud that this government today is introducing this legislation, as we've continually introduced positive and progressive legislation in this province. We don't want for the people in our province what we see happening in Ontario, where they introduced the sort of legislation that the member for Victoria had suggested might be introduced in this Legislature, dealing with people's rights and properties. They moved in Ontario, very quickly after their election, to bring in that same legislation that was then suggested by the member for Victoria. And you see what's happening in Ontario. Apartment buildings in Toronto that were going up to 50 storeys were capped at the thirteenth floor because they couldn't continue on. People are moving out in droves. There's no opportunity and no future in that province, because socialism has set in, and socialism is negative and will destroy absolutely. We've seen it throughout the whole of the world — anywhere and everywhere it's been tried.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is good free enterprise. It's in keeping with the philosophy of our government, where we believe in the rights of the individual; where we believe in their rights to hold property of all sorts, and not to have big government move in and somehow take the attitude or position — as the member for Nanaimo would — that if perhaps anything legislatively or otherwise would interfere with how a government might operate, then obviously the government comes first. We say the people come first. The individual comes first; whether he lives in Nanaimo, Esquimalt, the Cariboo, the Okanagan, Vancouver East or Victoria — now I've named all the NDP members present — it doesn't matter. They're all entitled to those same rights, and no government should be afraid to spell it out as we've done. Again, as we've seen it every time in the past, British Columbia has taken the lead. We're the number one province in this country, not only when it comes to fiscal management, good economic management, openness and involving the people, but also when it comes to introducing good, progressive, positive legislation. We're the first. We'll continue to be the first.

Members opposite, I do invite your support of this bill. People may see through what you are doing and recognize that you are simply camouflaging and attempting to create some other perception. But it isn't going to work. This legislation will again be number one, as all the things we've done have led the country. I'm proud to support it.

[3:30]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted the Premier finally had an opportunity to give the political stump speech he's wanted to give all this time, However, when he enters on the theme of camouflage and changing one's message as the need arises, let me remind the House what the Premier had to say a short while ago. In an essay written in a book called The Housing Crisis: Causes, Effects and Solutions, guess what our Premier, this self-same speaker, had to say. He said:

"I am a rare bird when it comes to political philosophy, because I do not" — it gets better, friends — "consider myself a socialist. I am a free-enterpriser, but I am very socialist-minded when it comes to land use or services to people or to health care or to any other basic human need."

Fair'enough. But you'll never guess what else he had to say. He had to say something about land use and private property. Mr. Speaker, this same man — this zealot of the free enterprise faction — had something else to say. He said: "It would be difficult to introduce into Canada the 'ideal' system" — guess what the ideal system would be, friends — "under which most land would be owned by the government and leased to the people." The ideal system. The reason that we can't do this, of course, has nothing to do with economics or logic. It's rather because: "This is still a pioneering country, and most people want to own their own piece of land."

Here the Premier, I grant you, showed a little wisdom and a little foresight, and he said: "If any government — even a socialist one — were to propose it, at least at present, there would be a tremendous uproar." Mr. Premier, how dare you then tell us about camouflaging one's true colours.

We have one more sentence, but I don't want to prolong this. I can tell the Premier's blushing, and so far be it for me to continue his embarrassment. But he also goes on to say: "However, I am convinced that this"  — i.e., the reference to land being owned by the government — "the 'ideal' state" — in my colleague's words, in the Premier's original words — "will come about gradually in my lifetime, not only In British Columbia but also throughout the western world." What can we say, Mr. Speaker, except that we are shocked?

What a reversal! If I can use a line I've used before, this makes Debble Brill's leaps look amateur by comparison. This is a leap.

We on this side are not about to engage in some elaborate and inflated rhetoric about a threat to one's property standing just outside the doorway and people about to break down doors. We support this measure, because all it does, despite all the rhetoric surrounding it, is talk about providing due process. The point made effectively by my colleague was that we wonder about the need for the legislation. However, insofar as we have a Bill of Rights, insofar as we have hundreds of years of common law, insofar as we have statute law to protect people's property....

Let me give just one brief example of our reason for being surprised when we hear the Attorney-General talk about the need for this legislation, echoed by the Premier's comments about the need for the legislation. I would refer them to the Expropriation Act that this Legislature passed only three years ago. That legislation makes very clear that people do indeed have rights. In fact, this government even produced a document called "Your Rights Under Expropriation." Now the obvious question is: were you misleading us three years ago? Are these rights

[ Page 11889 ]

you're now about to confer brand-new, or is it the case rather that we've always had the rights?

Mr. Speaker, we'll support the legislation. It's good legislation. We wonder, however, whether it needs to be stated in specific form as it is now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both members for Langley, the Hon. Carol Gran and Dan Peterson, MLA, would the House make a special welcome. In the precincts is Mr. Pete Luongo, the teacher, and his grade 7 class from Langley Meadows Elementary School. There are 54 of them here today. Would the House bid them a special welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH; I'm particularly pleased to have a chance to rise in this Legislative Assembly on the question of providing some greater security for our citizens with respect to property rights.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting for me to note that the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, Mr. Nystrom, was introduced into our Legislature this afternoon, because today I was at a hearing of a Senate-House of Commons committee of which he is a member. One of the things being discussed there was the question of the amending formula to the constitution of Canada. That question relates directly to property rights and why we have this bill before us today.

You see, the constitution of Canada has been deficient since 1982, when embedded into it was our Charter of Rights, because it did not include within that Charter the question of property rights. Today we were talking about the amending formula and how we could go about amending it to ensure that Canadians could put into the constitution the kinds of things about which they are interested, rather than the kinds of things about which only politicians and members of government are interested. We were talking about the fact that Canada has too much government and Canadians have too little power.

That is the essence of this bill. It flows from the notion that in Canada there is too much government and Canadians as a result have too little real power. We were speaking at that committee as well about referenda and property rights, citizen initiatives — the kinds of things that we would want to put to a referendum ourselves in terms of enhancing rights for citizens. Should we put to them the issue of property rights? Should we put to them the question of whether they want to have more direct citizen-sponsored initiatives that are decided upon by the people? Should we put to them at the time of the next election the question of whether we have direct recall of MLAs by citizens of this province? Of course, those are issues which we are in fact contemplating now, which indeed are most likely to be put to the citizens of the province of British Columbia, and we're doing that for the same reasons we have introduced this bill: because it is the case that Canada has too much government and Canadians have too little power.

It is the case that the Charter of Rights is deficient, and it is instructive to know why the Charter of Rights is deficient. The Charter of Rights is deficient because it does not have the fundamental right of them all. The precursor of all other rights, all other freedoms, is the freedom and the right to own your own property. In Britain, where those rights arose, the right to free speech arose because you had property that you needed to defend and to talk about. The right to assemble arose out of the right to own property in its broadest sense. All other rights flow from the right to own and protect that which is yours. Yet in Canada, one of the few countries in the entire world that has chosen to go to a system of written rights.... Canada, together with the Soviet Union and Argentina, is one of the only countries that denies its citizens the right to own property in its constitution.

The reason that denial occurred in 1981 and 1982 is that the NDP refused to allow it to be put in. Not just that, but the leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, was the individual in the kitchen debate who was the strongest advocate of preventing the right to own property from being embedded in the constitution. The stated reason of the government of Saskatchewan was that they wanted to take over some properties and they didn't want the inconvenience of having citizens' protection embedded in the law, standing in the way of their desire to use the power of government to take over property. That, of course, is why the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada is deficient and will remain deficient, even in the face of this legislation. Until we have those rights embedded in our constitution, they will not be as secure for citizens as they should be.

It is for that reason, when I hear people raising the question that perhaps the courts are going to hypothetically interpret this in a way that is going to be difficult for government, using the American model.... That, of course, is why that is a specious argument, because in the United States the right to own property is entrenched in their Bill of Rights and therefore has impact on everything in that country.

We are taking the steps that we can here with this bill, in the face of a deficient Charter of Rights, to ensure that to the extent that we can, we can accord to people due process of the law. We can accord to people the knowledge that every law passed in this chamber henceforth and every agreement entered into by the province of British Columbia, be it with the government of Canada, with a foreign power or with another jurisdiction of any kind, will be subject to the notion that the right of an individual to own their own property — real property, intellectual property, all the possible definitions of property — will be preserved.

[3:45]

I am very pleased to be able to be part of a government that is prepared to do that. The fact that

[ Page 11890 ]

we have defined property so broadly means that it will grow as the notion of property itself grows. It means that people will continue to be protected against the caprice and the ever-grasping hand of government, trying to take from them something that is theirs.

It won't prevent government from doing what it wants to do; it won't prevent government from being able to introduce legislation for the common good. But it will say to government that if they're going to do that, then they have to be mindful of the rights of individuals to own their property and to be protected from what they're about to do. That's not such a bad thing, because governments — every government — can always rationalize, justify and find a reason why somehow the collective good and the common interest, as they define them, are greater than the needs of the little individual out there over whose rights they're going to trample.

That individual needs the protection of law; that individual needs the protection of the Charter, in fact. That individual is not going to have the protection of the Charter, so the next best thing we can do is to ensure that at least to the extent that the laws of British Columbia impact on citizens, they will be dealt with properly, they will be dealt with in a way that is mindful of the rights of the individual, and they can know that every time the province of British Columbia enters into an agreement — because constitutionally, British Columbia, after all, has primacy over property and civil rights.... So they will know that every time the province enters into agreements, it will be mindful of the right to own property as it is broadly defined — far beyond real property; property in its broadest definition.

So it is encompassing legislation, and it will be inconvenient from time to time for people in the Highways department, the Municipal Affairs department, B.C. Hydro or any number of departments of government. It will make it more difficult for them to do what they want to do and what they have ordained is in the public interest. Of course it will do that; that is its intention. It is, after all, philosophically a contest that pits the power of government and bureaucracy against the rights of the individual. That is what it is for.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It is designed to ensure primacy for the individual, and when you ensure primacy for the individual, you necessarily make it inconvenient for the collective entity. That is the contest, and it's a simple philosophical contest. It's not complicated; it's not difficult to understand. It's a matter of fundamental philosophy. Do you accept the notion that the rights of an individual have primacy over the collective good when there's a contest between those two things? Not that the individual is going to be able to prevent the collective from doing its job; that's not what this does. What it does is ensure that when the collective entity wants to move forward, it must by law take into account the rights of individuals. When it's going to take something away from them, it must compensate them in the broadest sense.

When we enter into agreements — with the government of Canada, for instance — where we haven't given enough thought to the indirect impact that could flow to the rights of individuals, whatever they may be, those individuals will be able to ensure that their rights are given support, because they will be able to rely on this law to say to big government: "While you were looking at some other problem over there that you think is more important, you forgot about me, the little individual." Today when we do that, the individual does not have recourse. With this kind of law, the individual will have recourse — not to prevent, but to ensure that their rights are given support and that, where they are going to be taken away, there is absolute assurance that they will have to be compensated for that which they have given up.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that that determination will be made by judges, by the courts. We made that decision as a nation in 1982, when we created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We made the decision at that time to give up our parliamentary supremacy in this chamber and to give ultimate authority to appointed judges. When we did that, we did not ensure that the most fundamental right of them all, the right that preordains all other liberties and freedoms in our society, was protected. That serves and will continue to serve for Canada as a point of great deficiency.

As government gets more pervasive, as intellectual rights increase, as the information society advances, as the notions of privacy — because of computerization — become a greater and more predominant issue, more and more will it become apparent that the deficiencies in our Charter of Rights are real. More and more will the need for this kind of legislation grow in importance. More and more will people be pleased by and reliant upon the meagre bit of help that we are giving to them by providing this legislative framework to ensure that when governments make their moves, they cannot do so. by avoiding their responsibility to individuals, and by ensuring that the little person in Birch Island, in Kwinitsa, in Skookumchuck, in Gitwinksihlkw, in Jordan River or on the Queen Charlotte Islands, does not have their rights removed or trampled and does not have their livelihood destroyed without government having to be accountable — even where government has not done it directly, but where they may have done it indirectly through agreement.

We should be vigilant about these issues because some of them are profoundly important. Some of these issues are treated terribly lightly and with guffaws in this chamber, but they go to the heart of the values that our forefathers fought and gave their lives for, and which go to the soul of what it is to be a Canadian.

We see creeping into our society in all manner of ways a trammelling of those rights. Even in our municipal governments today, in their zoning where we have always protected them from actions against zoning being considered to be an expropria-

[ Page 11891 ]

tion — we see where changes are going to have to be made. Some zonings and rezonings are being undertaken in bad faith — not to deal with land-use issues, but to remove property rights from people who have acquired them, kept them, honoured them and paid the taxes on them.

We can always find a way in a chamber like this to rationalize the collective good of creating another open space or park, perhaps preventing some noise or, in the case of a farming community, to move in after the farmers have been there for all those years and say: "Well, now that I've moved in, that old manure pile isn't quite what I thought it was when I came here in the first place." We can always find ways to rationalize that and say to the individual citizen that the might of those who can draw together collectively and use the system or get government on their side will end whatever it was that individual had worked for, grown used to, developed and cherished.

If, by bringing this legislation in, we prevent any of that from happening or, if it is happening, we ensure that the individual is protected somehow from the caprice, inadvertence or non-caring of government when it does those kinds of things, we will have served ourselves well. We will have served the citizens well, and we will have done it in a way that makes up for a little bit of the deficiency that is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the rights of individuals to own their own property and not have it removed without being accorded the due process of our laws.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant.to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General will close debate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't think it could have been put more eloquently than by my colleague the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, when he made the point that it is important to protect the individual — rich or poor, of any colour you might describe, located in any part of the province — with the right guaranteeing that no property shall be taken from an individual except by due process of law — a right that no one should minimize, because it's so significant.

We do not minimize the impact of this, and while we did recognize the fact that there is a Canadian Bill of Rights.... In fact, it's superseded by the Charter of Rights. Indeed, the federal legislation some spoke of earlier this morning really applies just to federal legislation, not particularly that of British Columbia.

With that, I close debate and state how proud I am that the bill has been brought forward by this government at this time. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 90, Property Rights Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. FRASER: I alluded to this legislation earlier today when I was giving second reading on the previous bill, saying that this bill, the Land Title Amendment Act — referring to the previous act of 1989 — was meant to ensure easy transmission of property and mortgage documents. That particular bill, as I've said before, was making it easier for other conveyancing documents, such as lease, easement, right to purchase and restrictive covenant.

This bill provides for a compulsory one-page conveyance document or — flexibility — another page can be added if necessary, in order to deal with the fine print normally associated with leases, agreements for sale and similar documents.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also refines some of the language of the 1989 reform that came into force last year. The refinements were based on recommendations from the legal and business community.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill completes the legislative work that is necessary to support the application of new technologies in the land title office. This, coupled with the standardization and plain-language elements of the reforms, will produce a significantly better conveyance system for the province and its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[4:00]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make a couple of comments with respect to this legislation. First of all, Mr. Speaker, this is in furtherance of the objectives that were recommended in the Hughes report — "Access to Justice" — suggesting that we should have more plain language with respect to our documents. In that regard, I think it's pleasing to see the government is moving on the very sensible recommendations of Mr. Hughes.

Secondly, they are a furtherance of the provisions that were found in Bill 61, introduced earlier on. That started the process of requiring plain language and standardization of conveyance forms.

Having just looked at some of those forms over the past year, and as we've seen the implementation of the new program, I'm not too sure if we're any further ahead. It is clear that the forms by themselves are actually quite simple — easy to read, easy to follow, and anybody could understand them. But over the past year — and I don't practise a lot anymore, but during the odd time I have been in a law office — I have noticed that always attached to all the documents is the legal mumbo-jumbo that we were trying to get rid of in the first place. They're not filed, but they are read, and you swear to the fact that you have read them and understood them. So I'm not too sure if we've advanced any further on the first go-round. Hopefully we will on the second go-round. This takes it to a different level.

[ Page 11892 ]

May I also say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to some of the changes proposed here, that I know the industry had some concerns about the computerization proposed for the land title office, and the way in which it may impact on the employment of those people who are engaged in the job of actually doing title searches in the province. To the credit of some people in the ministry, a lot of that has been resolved over the past few months, and I'm glad to see that. In some ways the delay between the two bills has actually served the province quite well.

This is welcome legislation in what, I think, has been generally a session that could have the potential for being highly partisan and confrontational. This legislation is overdue, and the sooner we get through with this the better.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this bill is going to receive unanimous consent. It's good legislation. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 91, Land Title Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Pelton in chair.

On section 1.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister confirm for me that section 2(2) of the Employment Standards Act, which is referred to in this change, is the provision in the Employment Standards Act that says that if a collective agreement is in place and has provisions different from the Employment Standards Act, then the provisions of the collective agreement will apply?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The intent of the act is to cover those workers who are not covered under union agreement and does not cause the effect of limiting a union agreement. A union agreement is over and above.

MR, SIHOTA: Is the minister saying — and I want to make sure I'm clear on this point — that this section says that no employee will be deprived of the rights that flow as a result of Bill 85?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, no, that's not what the bill says. The bill allows for unions and management to amend provisions within the contractual arrangement of a collective agreement, which can allow for something different.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right, Mr. Chairman, and that was my original question. So the minister would agree with me that an individual, by virtue of a collective agreement, can have rights less than that what's enumerated in this legislation. Would you agree with that?

HON. MR. RABBITT. If provisions are negotiated lower than the standards set, that would be possible.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for confirming that because that, of course, highlights the very concern I have with this provision. Surely, when the ministry brought forward this amendment to the Employment Standards Act. It must have put its mind to the fact of whether the Employment Standards Act should be the floor — if I can put it that way — or whether they would allow holes in the floor and allow certain individuals to have rights less than the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Part and parcel of this amendment inevitably has to be a revisiting of that philosophy.

The original section — section 13 if memory serves me right; I don't have the act here, because we ended up getting to this a lot sooner than I thought we would — in the 1960 legislation had indicated that an employee not be deprived of the rights contained in this statute. Again, going from memory, that provision was repealed during the restraint era in the 1980s. It seems to me that the amendment we're proposing here is not simply a housekeeping matter. It goes beyond that, and it obviously meant that the government had to revisit the issue of minimum standards and make a determination as to whether or not the provisions under section 1 of Bill 85 ought to be minimum standards or whether or not people should be allowed to be exempt from those standards.

Could the minister therefore explain to the House why he came to the conclusion that the status quo should prevail: namely, that certain individuals in British Columbia would have less rights than those which are sought and provided for in the legislation?

HON, MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, it's the government's position that unionized workers should be able to rely on their certified bargaining unit to establish at least the base line that we are establishing here as a basic standard for society.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, fine. If you're saying you have that much faith in the collective bargaining process, that's great. That gets us off into another debate in terms of another piece of legislation that came before this House, where obviously the government, in the belief that certain groups would be able to extract benefits and agreements in excess of the minimum, felt it did not have particular faith in the free collective bargaining process.

Again, to the minister. for what policy reason are you saying that certain British Columbians should have less rights than others? I think it's somewhat paradoxical that this comes right after the debate

[ Page 11893 ]

we've had about rights being accorded to all British Columbians under the Property Rights Act, and yet here you're saying that it's cool for certain British Columbians to have less.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost confidence that the bargaining agents for the workers who are organized under collective agreements will be able to bargain and include these minimum standards within their collective agreements, and I do not see a major problem.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't see how the minister can say that. I'm glad to see that you have confidence. Again, that seems to be in stark contrast to what your party said earlier on with respect to other legislation in the House.

Whether or not you've got that confidence is not the point. The point is that certain British Columbians have less rights than others. Do you think, Mr. Minister, that some British Columbians should have less rights than others, in terms of these types of maternity and paternity leave benefits? Do you find it acceptable that certain British Columbians have less rights than those which are accorded in statute?

HON, MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, the members of a union do not have less rights. Their rights are defined in legislation other than this. They certainly have the right to negotiate benefits which are either greater or lesser than these standards.

MR. SIHOTA: That's a fascinating comment from the minister — that other workers don't have less rights. The Ministry of Labour has on file all of the collective agreements. Could the minister assure this House that all of those collective agreements provide for 18 weeks of maternity leave?

HON. MR. RABBITT: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. SIHOTA: May I humbly suggest to the minister opposite that the reason he can't confirm that is that he and I know full well that not all collective agreements make reference to the maternity leave provisions provided in the Employment Standards Act. They don't employ that language.

It seems to me, since you've got the information on file.... Can you tell us how many of the ones you've got on file make reference specifically to the provisions provided under the Employment Standards Act? Can you tell us that much?

HON. MR. RABBITT: To the learned member across the floor, I would like to reiterate that the basic intent of this act is to provide protection to the unorganized workers of this province.

MR. SIHOTA: Fair enough, Mr. Minister. If that is your view, could you then explain why you don't think that the same rights, at least on a minimum basis, should apply to organized workers in the province?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The collective bargaining process is one that allows the bargaining agent to bargain whichever level of right, whichever sector he wishes to place in emphasis. He can bargain that higher than these standards at any time.

MR. SIHOTA: You keep on talking about higher standards, Would you agree with me that, pursuant to some of the collective agreements you've got on file, individuals have maternity leave benefits of less than 18 weeks?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I'm sure the member, with his knowledge of labour-management relations, knows that is quite true. There are contracts out there that do have lesser provisions.

MR. SIHOTA: That begs the obvious question I've been trying to ask the minister all along. If you know that certain British Columbians have less rights than what is provided in law, why do you allow that situation to occur? Why do you say that all British Columbians must have at least an equal playing-field or minimum rights, whether they are covered by collective agreements or not?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, the member should understand that the reason some of these contracts have lesser standards is that the bargaining process has put them at that specific spot. I certainly have confidence that the individuals who are bargaining for the labour movement today will be able to bargain provisions such as these, or ones that may even be greater, into the agreement.

There's no difficulty in setting standards for the unorganized. We could have also set standards for the unions, but I believe in letting free collective bargaining take place. I believe in free collective bargaining setting standards where collective agreements are in place.

MR. SIHOTA: That's a fascinating statement from the minister. If he believes that legislation should not intrude into the collective bargaining process, how can he justify his government introducing all sorts of other legislation, which we talked about earlier this week, that intrudes into the collective bargaining process? Mr. Minister, you can't have it both ways. If you are prepared to intrude at one stage in one fashion, why aren't you prepared to provide British Columbians with basic rights on the other side?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just remind the hon. member that we aren't allowed to deal with a....

[4:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my question is not to get into a debate about other legislation but to point out to the Minister of Labour that there is an inconsistency in the view of the government. It seems to me that he is obviously disagreeing with the view of his own party on the matter of intrusion and is certainly not prepared to

[ Page 11894 ]

provide all British Columbians with the same minimum level of rights.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, this is very fascinating, but if the member wants to talk about his philosophy, my philosophy, the government's philosophy or the NDPs philosophy, he should have done it in second reading. We're going through this bill clause by clause, and this member is wandering all over the map, abusing the rules. I suggest that we try to work our way through this bill, using the rules of this House in a proper way.

MS. EDWARDS: I find it interesting that all of a sudden the minister doesn't want to talk philosophy at all. When he was asked, "What's the purpose of this clause?" I believe he first said that the purpose of this clause was to see that we have equal rights for everyone. Then, of course, he changed it. I find it amazing that the minister says that he has great faith that the union movement is going to bargain right up to wherever he decides it's going to be — I assume. That's exactly what he seemed to say: "Wherever we put it, we have great faith that the union movement will get there."

That's very nice, Mr. Minister, but even if we were to ignore the fact that that is a matter of inequality for the people who are not at that point and that this law, which should apply to all the people in British Columbia, does not — because there are certain people very specifically excluded — you are excluding a certain number of people even for the term of the agreements. So does the minister not agree that it is a direct discrimination against people who currently have agreements which are less than what he puts out in the bill and that right now this is a direct discrimination?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The short answer is no. The unions have the ability to negotiate over and above.

MS. EDWARDS: The unions have the ability to negotiate, but some don't have the ability to negotiate an agreement for two or even up to three years from the time that this hill will be proclaimed. So it acts very clearly as a discriminatory clause against people who already have agreements that do not live up to the limit in this clause.

HON. MR. RABBITT: The ability of the parties is always there for them to re-open a collective agreement. With the changes in federal unemployment insurance benefits and the changes we're bringing forward here, it's very probable that you'll see many of the unions, prior to the term of their agreement expiring, renegotiating terms that meet or better these terms.

MS. EDWARDS: If, for example, a union were unable to bargain as good a clause as this into their agreement for the next two years.... Perhaps they've just signed a two-year agreement; they've got another two years. Is the minister willing to then extend that right to those people?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The answer is no, the reason being that the collective agreement between an employer and an employee is a collective package. It is made up of many things, and this is one of them.

MS. EDWARDS: It's very clear that this clause was put in here not for the rights of all British Columbians, but for a very specific group. It's a discriminatory clause.

MR. SIHOTA: If I may just continue with debate for a few minutes longer, I think the points are obvious in terms of the two parties. It's important that this section seeks to give certain rights to individuals. That's fine. Individuals should have those rights — there's no denying that. But when the ministry decided to amend this section, it automatically revisited the section. At that point it must have debated whether all British Columbians should at least enjoy the same minimum of rights. Surely they must have discussed whether it would have left certain loopholes in the legislation that allow for some individuals in the province to end up in a situation where they have less rights than those enumerated in law.

The government at that point should have addressed the fundamental issue in this section: the need to make sure that all British Columbians are treated at least equally or that they have at least the same minimum amount of rights. If the collective bargaining process failed in the provision of these rights for maternity or parental leave, then surely the government should have said, as a matter of principle: "We think that even though there are collective agreements out there that are less than what we have here in statute, all British Columbians should have the same minimum right." In other words, define the floor and allow the collective bargaining process to move to the ceiling.

At that point it ought to have revisited the whole thing in terms of all the other rights enumerated in the Employment Standards Act. On the one hand, what's happening here is good in that finally we are beginning to get in British Columbia some decent rights for maternity and parental leave — no two ways about it. But what's bad about it is that the government did not have the jam to plug up the loopholes to make sure everybody got the same minimal amount of rights. That's unfortunate.

The point's been made. it's clear that we think there should be a floor; but it's clear that the Minister of Labour doesn't think there should be a floor in terms of these rights.

Let me also say, with respect to this section, that part and parcel of the rights here are rights that exist. British Columbians need to know that they have these protections. I talked during second reading debate about the way in which that can be done, and I appreciate that the minister said certain steps would be taken to do that. That's good.

[ Page 11895 ]

Third, there will inevitably be situations where employers will not agree to the provision of these rights, where they will argue with an employee as to whether or not they should be entitled to the rights enumerated in this act and in this section. There will be disputes. That's obvious. There will be complaints.

Mr. Chairman, if I may digress only for 30 seconds, it is unfortunate that currently the Ministry of Labour does not have the capacity to look into the complaints that are coming into their offices under the existing provisions of the act, let alone the complaints that will come in under these provisions. If I can make a plea to the minister: as part and parcel of what he had to say the other day about promoting to British Columbians that they have these rights in terms of maternity and paternal leave, he must also make sure that staff is provided in the front lines to make sure that when people phone up to inquire about their rights or to complain about the denial of these maternity and paternal leave rights, there is a system in place to address and handle that. That's currently not there. The minister knows that; I know that. The minister has conceded that irk some of the public comments he's made, and the problem will get worse.

The only plea I can make to the minister is: (1) give consideration to these being the minimum rights British Columbians have; (2) give consideration to the promotion of these rights; and (3) make sure you have the ability to enforce these rights, or individuals who find themselves in a situation where an employer is not willing to provide these rights...that resources are available to make sure an employer complies with sections of the act. If you do all three of those, you'll do well. My concern is that you've done (1), but you haven't done (2) and (3), and most importantly, you've shown an incredible unwillingness to resolve the third problem.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Most members should know that this section was introduced in 1983. In conferring with my senior staff — I should introduce them: Deputy Minister Claude Heywood and the ADM of Labour, Ron Buchhorn — I have confirmed that we have not had any significant problems reported under section 2(2). That's the point you've raised. We've got no history of having a problem in that area.

You talked about the rights and public awareness, I agree with you. I committed to you, in second reading, that the ministry will make every effort to see that the public and employees are informed of their rights and will keep you abreast of the program.

On the third point you made, with regard to disputes and complaints, I will also give you the undertaking that every effort will be made to see that staff is allocated as necessary to see that the needs of this particular act are met.

I thank you for your remarks,

MR. SIHOTA: I'll end it on this note. Anytime you'd like to talk about collective agreements that fall below the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, come down to my office. You know, Mr. Minister, as I do, in the construction trades there are examples right here in Victoria of collective agreements that fall below the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SIHOTA: Section 3 requires four weeks' notice when requesting maternity leave. This new section 51.1 reiterates requirements for certificates from a medical practitioner stating that the worker is pregnant and the probable due date. This of course brought forward certain comments from my colleague from Surrey earlier on. The whole matter of a certificate from a medical practitioner stating that the employee is pregnant and estimating the probable date of childbirth.... Usually it's fairly easy to figure out whether someone is pregnant. I'm not too sure why this section is required. Perhaps the minister could offer an explanation first, and then I have some additional questions with respect to this section.

HON. MR. RABBITT: The four weeks' notice is being added to be consistent with notice of the same length of time that is required for parental leave. It is believed that the employer is entitled to receive some advance notice of the employee's intent to take leave in order to hire or reschedule replacement workers for the position that will be vacated.

MR. SIHOTA: Why do you need a certificate from your doctor saying that you are pregnant?

HON. MR. RABBITT: It is felt, member, that the requirement of the prospective mother to provide a medical certificate to claim maternity leave is one which is reasonably accepted in the community. Other jurisdictions require it. It's felt it has been reasonable in other jurisdictions. The wording is simply a carry-over from the existing provision, and we have not experienced problems with that or received any complaints in the past.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: When someone is pregnant, it's fairly obvious. I can't put it in the same way my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley put it. No one is going to be guffing her employer by suggesting she's pregnant when she's not. They can certainly tell that they're pregnant and can certainly tell when their probable due date is.

I'll tell you where I'm concerned. You say it has to come from a doctor. You know and I know — or you don't know and I don't know, I guess — whether this is going to be something they're going to have to pay for in terms of a letter from the doctor. Is there a provision in the legislation that says this has to be provided for free?

[4:30]

[ Page 11896 ]

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, this is an existing provision; this is not new. There had been no evidence that we should come forward with a change in the legislation. There is nothing that has been complaint-driven to warrant a change.

MR. SIHOTA: Hardly a week goes by without a complaint coming into my office about the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. I will confess that those complaints have increased in the last year since the Victoria Labour Council started to do its work with respect to the inadequacies of the Employment Standards Act. They probably weren't coming in as frequently then as they are now. But certainly over the past year, it's hard to think of a week when we didn't get a complaint under the Employment Standards Act. Often those complaints come from someone who has been denied rights under the legislation. I don't want to get into all the various rights that people are denied.

There will be a cost for the provision of this service. Either the taxpayer is going to pick it up — because the doctor is going to bill the system, and I'm not convinced that you need to have that cost built into the system for a letter saying that someone is pregnant; it's pretty easy to tell whether or not someone's pregnant — or, alternatively, the worker is going to be asked to pay the $35 fee, which I  think is now the minimum when you go into health clinics, with respect to this service.

For some people $35 is not a big deal. But I look at the kinds of cases that we get coming into our constituency office. They are inevitably young, working for $5 or $6 an hour, a single mother trying to makes ends meet on that kind of an income with a subsidy from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for day care, a single mother trying to get some work. Or it's someone who is young, who has an apartment costing $400, $500 or $600 a month. When we look at all their costs, there are very few discretionary dollars there after the groceries, food and transportation are paid for. To a lot of people, a $35 fee is an impediment to securing a statement from a doctor. These are real problems, real people, coming into our office who really find themselves in situations of some poverty. Every dollar out of the $5-an-hour wage makes it that much tougher, and it has to be made up somewhere else.

Quite frankly, I don't care if you've had complaints or not. I think there has to be some sensitivity, and with respect to this kind of situation, I think logic drives you to the conclusion that you really don't need someone to either take up the doctor's time to get a certificate or, alternatively, to have it come out of their limited resources to get a certificate. It's obvious when someone is pregnant. I think you should rescind this section of the legislation. If you're going to do it now, that's great. Some ministers have shown that kind of courtesy on the floor. But if you're not, then I want to say that somewhere along the line — and I'll end on this note — your ministry has to have a full and comprehensive review of the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. This type of piecemeal approach to the Employment Standards Act, as it's reflected through this legislation and other legislation — although some of the programs that are proposed may be good, some may be bad, some may be questionable — has resulted in us having a relatively rag-tag act. There are all sorts of inadequacies and all sorts of shortcomings within the Employment Standards Act.

What is really needed in this province is a total review of the provisions of the Employment Standards Act so that they're made relevant to the state of the workforce today. I don't think that the minister would disagree with me on that point. I would hope that the minister would acknowledge with me that one of the priorities of his ministry has to be the matter of updating, revamping and putting before the people of this province, through this Legislature, a new Employment Standards Act which is contemporary in its approach and far more rational. If you're not to remove this section now, I would hope that you will do it during that kind of a review. It is unnecessary,

I can think of other situations where a certificate from a medical practitioner is necessary and should be required and is a valid request. In the case where you can in no way objectively tell whether someone is pregnant — there's a big difference between pregnancy and a back injury.... In situations like this it's unnecessary. For that small portion of the population hindered by that $35 fee for the report from the doctor, you would be doing them a service and making it easier for them to exercise their rights that you've sought to provide under the provisions of this legislation.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this. I notice my colleague for Surrey Guildford-Whalley is in the House, and we are dealing with the notice provisions in terms of a certificate. I don't know if she's got any comments, but I've put our concerns on the record.

HON. MR. FRASER: That this particular provision has been in the act for some 11 years without very much comment about it would lead one to think it hasn't caused an undue amount of harm or pain. If it has, I'm sure my colleague will do something about it. I commend him for bringing in this act, which updates the Employment Standards Act for the benefit of all the employees and employers in British Columbia.

I suspect that this particular section has quite a bit to do with the time that the baby is to be born — so that the employee will have a set day or as close as possible a set day when the baby might be expected to be born and so that the employer can have the same kind of notice. As the member said, it's usually pretty obvious when a woman is pregnant, but it's not always obvious when the baby's going to be born. It's critical to the flow of business and industry — for employer and employee — to have some kind of reconciliation about when that employee will be taking maternity leave. So I see nothing wrong with having some attempt to determine when babies are

[ Page 11897 ]

going born so that the two parties — the employer and the employee — can say: "The baby's expected on this day, according to a medical doctor." That seems to me to make some sense, unless there is a compelling reason not to have that information transmitted for the benefit of those parties. The ministry has made some sense leaving it in.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General misses the point. Women will regularly go to their physician for checkups after it's been determined they are pregnant, and they'll receive the usual set of tests and scans. Very early on, these days, you're told when your due date is. I won't get into that kind of stuff, but usually you know when the due date is and usually it is not that far off. I just went through it in terms of our own family situation and the birth of our son. You can predict with some accuracy as to when — a doctor will tell you when. You can tell your employer when so the employer can plan.

What I don't understand — and this is the point — is why you've got to pay $35 to have your doctor write a letter saying the due date is X when you can just verbally tell your employer. That's the whole point. Why have somebody put out the cash or why have the medical system billed for this service when you really don't need it, when it's a lot easier just for someone to walk in and say: "I just went in for my second checkup and the doctor says such and such a date?"

HON. MR. RABBITT: My colleague the Attorney General did mention that this particular piece of legislation has been in effect since 1980. I would hope that most pregnant women would be under the care of a doctor, and hopefully this would not be a hardship on all pregnant women. I imagine right now that many doctors out there do not charge $35 for a certificate for a woman to bring forward.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew did mention, though, that he didn't care about whether there were complaints. I do care, because when I'm looking at this objectively, I'm trying to look at where the problems are. We're trying to look at how we can harmonize it with the federal legislation so that women can get maximum benefits. So I do care. But I'm looking at where the problems are. I'm not going to start making changes in this particular act because of my own personal philosophy.

I would like to say that the member was told in the House, when I brought the bill in, that I would have a review of the Employment Standards Act. So his reference to wishing I would.... If he'd been listening that day he would have heard me stand right in this spot and tell the House that there are areas that we do want to look at and that we're going to review the entire Employment Standards Act. So it is going to happen, and we will be doing it later this year.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put a simple scenario to the minister. If the minister were at a social gathering where he met a friend of his — a couple, perhaps; two friends of his — and the woman was obviously pregnant, and at that same gathering war, the couple's doctor, to whom would the minister go first to ask, if he could see that the woman was pregnant? She could be within four weeks of the delivery date. Suppose he wanted to know when that baby was due. Is he going to go first to the doctor and say, "When is that baby due?" or is he going to go first to the woman and say: "When is the baby due?" It seems to me that this act puts the onus on someone who probably doesn't know considerably more than the woman. She is the one you would normally ask. Why does the act not follow that practice?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a question for the minister. The minister has said that this provision has been in place for some 11 years and they haven't had any complaints. Perhaps he can explain why the provision was brought in in the first place and why he has chosen to reintroduce it in this capacity.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I would ask the member to refer to the Blues. We've already canvassed that area several times.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry I missed that. I can only assume, then — because I was off doing my constituency business — that there was rampant misuse of the provision when it did not call for a doctor's note to your employer to tell him you were pregnant, and your expectancy date. You see, Mr. Minister, when I had my children, that wasn't a requirement. Through UI, it was a matter of giving your employer due notice. You had the opportunity of either taking maternity leave after the birth of the child or splitting it up — doing a little bit before and a little bit after — if it was difficult to continue your employment. I am really, quite frankly, confused.

I find it amusing — and I think I made that point — when governments consciously put up obstacles and make life a little bit more difficult for families. I'm afraid I've managed to put my amusement into perspective and deal with it in the serious manner it should be dealt with. I'm afraid I'm not happy with a government representative saying: "Well, it's been in place for 11 years, and we haven't had a lot of complaints." The fact is that you're making women jump through hoops, and I don't see where it's justified.

[4:45]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm glad to hear that the minister is doing a review of the Employment Standards Act. When he's doing that, perhaps he could hire more staff so that people with complaints don't have to wait two months for an employment standards officer to get to those complaints.

On this section — if in fact we are going to pass this section, and we are going to allow doctors to charge $35.... I would suggest to the minister that that is a rather low fee, because certainly for other certificates required from doctors for medical reasons, I have seen much higher fees.

[ Page 11898 ]

Well, let's just take the scenario, Mr. Minister, of a person working for the minimum wage of $5 an hour, 35 hours a week. You have reduced that person's minimum wage to $4 an hour by a requirement for a certificate that there is obviously no need for. They're making less than the minimum wage because you're putting an obstacle in the path of somebody who is obviously pregnant. If in fact that is the case, I would expect the minister, who is in control of the Employment Standards Act, to have some sympathy for those people and to either increase the minimum wage or eliminate this section of the bill.

Mr. Minister, it's a very simple matter. We're dealing with people here who, as has been said.... Thirty-five dollars is a lot of money. Perhaps it means putting food on the table; perhaps they have other children. Have some consideration, Mr. Minister. Try to put yourself in those people's position. I know that ministers are well paid, but try to think back. Perhaps you know some constituents who are in a similar position. This is placing an unnecessary burden on them, and it is also placing roadblocks in the way of pregnant women, particularly those on a lower pay scale, who are trying to raise a family and trying to make their life a little better.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, the members on the other side huff and they puff. Eleven years have gone by, and I'm informed by the senior management of the Ministry of Labour that this has not been a problem. But in the minds of some — in the figment of somebody's imagination over there — it is a problem. We're bringing in legislation here that puts British Columbia at the forefront right across Canada, and I believe that, as a package, it's good legislation. I can tell all the members who have spoken on this that if this appears to be a problem in the future, we will address it.

I can look down the road to being in this chair and in this ministry four years from now. I'll probably have reviewed it and will have had ample time to come back and give you the answer as to how it works.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for his comments on if it is going to be a problem. I wonder if he could explain to me — what is a problem? Five complaints? Ten complaints? Fifty complaints? Could he give us an indication of what would determine a problem to get him to remove this section from the act?

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I would like to ask the minister.... This is 51.1(4)(a). It says; "If the newborn child or adopted child will be or is at least six months of age at the time the child comes into the actual care and custody of the mother and father...." Now I'm not sure what the minister had in mind if a newborn child is six months of age before it comes into the custody of the mother or father. Without making any speculation on that, I'll simply ask the minister what he means.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It's a good question. It's a newborn or an adopted baby under that specific age.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the wording need to be changed then, Mr. Chairman? I don't believe that's what it says, and I believe the wording will have to be changed if that's what the minister means. It says that if the newborn child is "certified..." — I presume that's where you want to go — "by a medical practitioner...that an additional period of parental care is required...." It would require different wording all the way through. I believe the minister should look at that.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, the newborn child or adopted child or "is at least six months...." You've got the three categories basically there, and the newborn child is self-defined, so you only have the adopted child falling into that category.

MS. EDWARDS: Let me clarify this. You mean that the adopted child is the only one who would be considered, if that child is six months of age or more when it comes into the custody of the mother and father?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Please elaborate a little on the question. We've got the newborn, we've got the adopted and we've got the age requirement on the one half. The newborn is self-evident because it's self-defined. Maybe you could just elaborate.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, the clause doesn't say what the minister says the clause says, as I understand it. It says: "If the newborn child or adopted child will be or is at least six months of age at the time the child comes into the actual care and custody of the mother and father...." If you want to clarify that, it would have to be worded differently. I want to be as uncritical as I can about why it's here, but I do believe the minister is going to have to have the clause changed.

However, to clarify what the minister means.... I presume he means by the clause that if a newborn child is certified to need additional parental care because the child suffers from a physical, psychological or emotional condition, and then proceed to the broad general statement that follows.... Or an adopted child needs that care. Now whether that means an adopted child who is into the people's care before that child is six months old or not, I'm not sure. Because it doesn't seem to me that you need three categories if any adopted child would be able to have that clause apply. I wonder if the minister could clarify that.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It's only the adopted child who will come into the care and custody, so that is

[ Page 11899 ]

why it refers specifically to the adopted child, not the natural newborn.

MS. EDWARDS: Then does it matter at what age the child is adopted and comes into the care and custody of the parents? Does it matter whether the child comes into their care and custody before or after the child is six months of age?

HON. MR. RABBITT: We're referring to parental leave here — maternity and parental leave. So if the child is 16 years old, no, we're not referring to a 16-year-old child being covered by this legislation; we're talking about infants and newborns.

MS. EDWARDS: Does, the minister mean, then, a newborn child or a child adopted before the age of six months? Is that what the clause should say?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Obviously, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. My understanding of the bill is that the adopted child has an added six months' time in there, because there is usually a time-gap between the time a child is born and when it is actually adopted. What we've done is add an extra six-month period in there for the adopted child. That is my understanding of how this will actually work.

MS. EDWARDS: Then it's clear that it's only an extra six months. If a couple adopts a 14-month-old child, for example, that child would not be included.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It has to be all tied in. You've got the 12 consecutive weeks and also the five consecutive weeks for a child with a special problem. We're talking about a period of time where that child, whether it's newborn or adopted.... There's a six-month period there when the parents of that child are eligible.

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, what we're defining in (4)(a) is simply to whom it applies. It applies to a newborn; it applies to a child who is to be adopted. But I'm trying to define from the, minister whether that means that the child has to be adopted before it's six months of age or whether there is a longer period of time. Does it apply to children adopted when they're one year old or two years old, for example? I know the minister says not 16, but does it mean infants, children, toddlers? Does it exclude children at six months?

HON. MR. RABBITT: No, my understanding is that it does include at least six months. Now, in order to obtain the benefit, you have to fall within the other parameters, So there's only a certain window of time that's going to be available.

MS. EDWARDS: And that window of time is if you adopt a child up to the age of six months.

MR. SIHOTA: If we come at it from a different angle, Mr. Minister, I think you'll be able to explain it. What happens if you adopt a child who is 14 months of age? What are the windows that you must fall into in order to get benefits under this act? Alternatively, do you not get any benefits if the child you have adopted is 14 months of age?

HON. MR. RABBITT: If the child is 14 months old and has a physical, psychological or emotional condition, then there is parental leave for an additional five consecutive weeks.

MS. EDWARDS: Could I just clarify with the minister. I'm not sure why it's in here. I thought I had this all clarified, but it doesn't make sense when you go back and read it, because it says that the adopted child has to be at least six months of age at the time the child comes into the actual care and custody. It seems to cut off the eligibility of an adopted child unless that child was adopted before it was six months old.

HON. MR. SIHOTA: Let's try this in a different way. How many weeks of coverage would you be entitled to if you adopted a 14-month-old child without disability? And how many weeks would you be entitled to if you adopted a 14-month-old child with disability, under the provisions of this act?

HON. MR. RABBITT: For an ordinary 14-month-old child with no disabilities, there would be parental leave of 12 weeks.

[5:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. If you have a natural-born child, there are 18 weeks, right? There is an additional 12 weeks, and there might be an additional five weeks. However, the total according to 51.2 is 32 weeks, whereas the total of 18, 12 and five is 35 weeks. What that says is that if you have a natural-born child you are unable to get the full number of weeks that are available, particularly the full number of weeks that are available if there was some kind of disability or extra parental care required. Is that correct?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I probably should have done this right from the beginning. The existing legislation has 18 weeks for maternity leave plus six weeks for medical leave. The new amendments we are bringing in have 12 weeks for parental leave and five weeks for special needs. That's the special requirements. That adds up to a total of 41 weeks, but to harmonize it with the federal government's UIC legislation and requirements we have capped it at 32 weeks. The UI benefits are for 30 weeks, and we've allowed two weeks for the waiting-period. This way, this legislation will allow for the full maximum amount of coverage that the UI benefits extend.

MS. EDWARDS: The point I was trying to ask the minister about was this. If 32 weeks is the extent of

[ Page 11900 ]

the parental leave, and the parent loses three weeks of the five weeks that would be available for special leave that is available to adopting parents.... Adopting parents get their 12 weeks and then they get their five weeks, but natural parents who had a child needing special care would have that final five-week period shortened.

HON. MR. RABBITT: There's no discrimination at all. Everybody is capped at 32 weeks.

MR. SIHOTA: Hang on. What that means is.... What you've done in the legislation is actually said to people they can get.... I calculated it out to be 35; you came up with 41. I didn't realize the additional six weeks that are in there. You've said to people: "You have these rights, but you don't." That's the point that's being made over here: basically you've restricted it to 32. We'll give you credit for giving those additional two weeks during the waiting-period; I said during second reading that I thought it was a thoughtful touch. But there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to the number of weeks you can get. It's not really what you can get in the act, because although you may be able to follow everything in the act, then you get 51.1(2), which limits it to 32. You are really limited to what the federal legislation provides you with. You really don't get what the act suggests you can get; that's really the point.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 85 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:06 p.m.