1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 8

[ Page 7383 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

D. Jarvis: In the galleries today are two young ladies from London, Ontario. I'd like to introduce Carol Hurrell and Gloria Jarvis. Would the members make them welcome, please.

D. Mitchell: I notice in the public galleries today two of my constituents. Would the House please welcome Diane and Nancy Hartwick.

Ministerial Statement

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD INITIATIVES

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me apologize at the outset, as this may be a little longer than is normally the case. I would appreciate the indulgence of the House -- in fact, I can see I'm going to get it -- in dealing with this issue. It's a significant issue that faces many British Columbians: namely, problems at the Workers' Compensation Board and the difficulties that workers have getting justice with regard to their claims.

For too long, workers in B.C. have experienced a series of problems relating to workers' compensation claims. First, they find that immediately upon being injured at work their stream of income is interrupted, which causes hardship for their family. Second, they find themselves facing a bureaucracy that is intimidating and hard for anyone to actually figure out. Third, because their stream of income has been interrupted, they cannot afford either legal counsel or advice on how to deal with the difficulties of that bureaucracy. And fourth, even if they find their way through the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, there are incredible and intolerable delays with regard to accessing their files, hearing their appeals and working through the system. All of us in this House, as MLAs who do ongoing constituency work, have seen both the anger and the frustration that working men and women who are injured feel when they find themselves in this kind of situation.

I am pleased to announce today that the government is taking a series of initiatives to deal with the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and I want to outline those initiatives. First, the government will be establishing a series of worker adviser offices throughout B.C. to assist workers who have claims against the Workers' Compensation Board. The purpose of these offices is to assist workers in resolving their claims in an expeditious way: first, by allowing the worker in a local community to meet someone locally, instead of having to go down to Richmond to meet someone face to face in an advocacy office; second, by providing them with information as to how they can deal with their claim in an expeditious fashion, to prepare it properly; and third, by providing better details of their cases, which are often complex, to offer direction to the Workers' Compensation Board in terms of how best to resolve these cases.

I'm pleased to advise all hon. members that we opened the first office in December in Prince George, today we opened an office in the greater Victoria area, in Saanich, and we will be opening additional offices in Kamloops and Nanaimo during the course of this fiscal year. By providing workers who are injured with access to advocacy services within the local community, we believe we can help workers at the front end deal with their claims and have them go through the system in a more expeditious way.

I think we all acknowledge that there has been a significant backlog with regard to the processing of claims at the Workers' Compensation Board. These occur at the appeal level, the former commissioner's office, the medical review panels and at the board of review.

Let me deal first with the commissioner's office -- as it was then called. Two years ago, for example, the delivery of services at the highest adjudicative level of the workers' compensation system, the commissioner's office, was a source of anger and frustration for injured workers. The backlog of cases at that time totaled over 1,700. I am pleased to report to this House today that over the course of our first year in office, this backlog of cases has been eliminated. I am proud of the work done at the WCB in turning that situation around for the benefit of those injured workers and their families who desperately needed decisions to be made. But that is clearly not enough.

Last week I met with the medical review panel of the Workers' Compensation Board and delivered the same message to them. As all members know, the review panel deals with all matters pertaining to medical questions on claims and appeals. The board of governors of the Workers' Compensation Board initiated a major study over the past year in response to, among other things, the need for a speedier resolution of medical claims. That report developed recommendations to resolve the pace at which medical appeals are dealt with. Those recommendations have been translated into regulations, and today I am pleased to confirm for the House that those regulations will be made law later this year.

I now want to turn to the work of the review board. Last fall the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca brought to the attention of all members of this House the alarming increase in the backlog of cases at the review board. This administrative tribunal considers appeals regarding decisions made by officers of the WCB on claims by injured workers. My colleague and other members of the Legislature have pointed out that the backlog of the review board totaled 6,000 cases. The government has taken several steps to reduce that backlog.

To begin with, we have launched a new format for appeals. We have now moved to a two-stage process with regard to appeals. First, we mail a letter to workers advising them that their appeal is in the system. Secondly, we encourage them to let us know when they are ready to appear before the board to have their case heard. By doing that, we believe that we will have more hearing slots available. We also believe that we will avoid the problems we've had in the past with regard to 

[ Page 7384 ]

delays in the system due to people having to seek deferral of a hearing. Consequently, as a result of these changes, we have now developed a system where, particularly in the lower mainland -- outside the lower mainland we're not quite there yet -- we will now be able to provide a hearing date within 30 to 45 days of the party being ready to proceed; in other words, when they have given us the second part of their appeal notice. We will provide a finding in the appeal within 60 days after the last submission is received. We've had delays of up to 11 months. We are now, particularly with regard to a case in the lower mainland, in a position where we can reduce that to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90 to 105 days.

I am also pleased to report to the House today that from May 10 to June 4 this year a special effort was undertaken at the review board to further tackle the backlog. Holidays for the review board staff were cancelled and work arrangements were totally focused on the production of decisions for all those appeals where more than 90 days had elapsed from the final evidence being heard. As a result of this effort, more than 1,000 appeals will have been decided. During this same time period, two task groups were assigned to review appeals which had been waiting too long to be assigned to panels. These have been identified as 850 appeals which would have taken until January 1994 to dispose of. Many had already been waiting 11 months without being assigned to a panel. As a result of this focused and intensified effort, it is estimated that these appeals will be dealt with by the end of this fall.

To further deal with the backlog, I am pleased to advise all hon. members that today the government has made a commitment to increase the number of panels at the review board. We will be adding four additional panels -- in other words, 12 additional people -- at the review board to further help eliminate the backlog and to provide workers with the justice they deserve. This government believes that justice delayed is justice denied. We believe that it is a matter of political will to resolve these problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. We are pleased to say that today we are demonstrating the will necessary to provide overdue justice to those workers in British Columbia that have been injured on the job and have had to wait for these kinds of decisions to be made.

I have reported to the House some of our past achievements with regard to workers' compensation. We have developed safety regulations for 30,000 farmworkers in the province. Most recently, I noted the successful completion of public hearings to provide regulations to reduce workplace violence. Several processes for public consultation have concluded in the areas of regulations for first aid, industrial chemicals and the fishing industry. For the working men and women of the province, this government will continue to expedite fair and timely decisions and increase the level of safety at job sites throughout B.C. We will also continue to lead in the provision of the most advanced and progressive compensation services available. The workforce in our province deserves nothing less.

[2:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I am indeed pleased to hear many of the comments the minister made today. Taking these issues by the horns, so to speak, and dealing with them to some extent has been long overdue. I do believe that a good deal of the credit goes to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who has been tireless in bringing these issues to the attention of the minister and of the House. I have talked to him a number of times on this very issue. I believe the problems that have existed in the past with the WCB, and many problems that continue to exist, are a concern to all members of the Legislature.

I think the relief of the backlog at WCB, the new appeal process and the administration of it are things that all injured workers will be pleased to know are now in place. I do, however, have some concerns with the minister's comments. A number of new panels are being set up and a number of new offices are being opened up to improve access. I do hope that the increased levels of access and the additional panels to get rid of the delays will correspond with a reduction in expenses at the Richmond office. I hope that in moving some of this access out into the areas where the workers are, we're not just doubling the bureaucracy but streamlining it and making it more effective and efficient. I would hope that that is going to be the end result of some of these changes as opposed to just a buildup.

A number of things will be required to make changes at the WCB -- not just policy changes, but a whole change in the culture of the organization in its attitude and responsiveness to the needs of injured workers; and treating them as fellow British Columbians and citizens, rather than people who are trying to scam the system or take advantage of something. That will take time, and I hope that all members of the House will continue to work towards that, providing their input and ensuring that many of the problems at the WCB that we hear about on a daily basis are cleared up in the near future.

L. Hanson: I must say to the minister that this sounds an awful like the announcement you made last year when you established the office in Prince George. From the minister's point of view, I suppose it's beneficial to announce it twice. I hope that the announcement of the new office will not stop the program where workers' advisers are travelling around the province and meeting with various claimants in their home community, because I think that that is an excellent program.

The only criticism I might have of the process is that the problem is not -- as I think the minister said in his statement -- the fact that claimants do not have the opportunity to get advice on how to thread their way through the bureaucracy; the problem is that there is far too much bureaucracy. I think the minister should put some of his energies into reducing the amount of red tape and problems....

Interjections.

[ Page 7385 ]

L. Hanson: They ask me who the Labour minister was. I might suggest that during the term of another minister the backlog at the review board was completely annihilated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please continue, hon. member.

L. Hanson: It's amusing how the opposition will pick up on something. The intention was to say that the backlog....

Interjections.

L. Hanson: We're the opposition.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I was referring to the backlog at the review panel. We had the circumstance of that being totally eliminated.

In any case, I hope that the minister, when he referred in his statement to the 30 to 45 days to have a date for the review hearing, meant that in 30 to 45 days was when the review hearing would be held, because the frustration is due to the time between the claim and the decision actually being made. If he did mean 30 to 45 days for an actual hearing to be held, I would support that wholeheartedly. If he meant that they would tell him, two years down the road, when the date would be within 30 or 45 days, that wouldn't be quite as acceptable. We can support wholeheartedly any initiative to get decisions more quickly and efficiently to people who have had injuries in the workplace so that they can resolve their future -- how they are going to handle it and what benefits they may or may not receive. The difficulty is the time lapse between an actual injury and a resolution of that problem. That is the problem, not access to workers' advisers. Maybe access to workers' advisers will help reduce that problem. Through this process, I hope that the minister understands what the problem is, and that he will continue to put his efforts into reducing that time delay and the frustrations that go with it.

Oral Questions

REASONS FOR DECLINE IN GOVERNMENT POPULARITY

F. Gingell: With all due modesty, I note some interesting poll results this morning. They have comments attached to them from the Premier that his government's decline in popularity is the result of hard choices they have made. In the Premier's absence, I wonder if the Deputy Premier would let us know which of the following choices have made this difference. Was it their choice to give patronage plums to NDP backers, their choice to make sweetheart deals with the unions or their choice to impose crushing taxes?

The Speaker: Deputy Speaker. Or Deputy Premier.

Hon. A. Hagen: I do intend to speak, hon. Speaker.

The hard choices that a government has to make coming in after years of mismanagement of our economy and social programs are something that everyone in this province knows about: looking after education and health and making the necessary changes; dealing with a deficit that was left to us -- dishonestly reported -- by the third party; continuing with spending in support of our priorities, where we manage the economy and our budget in the interests of all British Columbia; and ensuring that in our term of office we will be known as a government that stood up for the people we represent, the working people of the province, and brought to our government and province the kind of management of our taxes and resources, human and fiscal, that serve the agendas that we were elected to do.

CANADA-U.S. SALMON NEGOTIATIONS

R. Chisholm: This question goes to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it is one of the hard choices you keep evading. In the past several hours the Pacific Salmon Treaty discussions have broken down. What specific plan does this minister have in place to ensure that American fishermen do not overrun our fishing industry and we do not end up with a summer of gunboat diplomacy on the high seas?

Hon. B. Barlee: I hope the member knows that negotiations between the United States and Canada are carried on between the United States and Canada. This is a negotiation by the federal government. I won't play politics on this. I will say that the federal government, led by the Hon. John Crosbie and a very brilliant negotiator, Yves Fortier, has not knuckled under on these particular negotiations; they're doing extremely well. We have drawn a line in the sand. It's extremely important, and I'll tell you why it's important. Last year the Americans took 361,000 sockeye out of the Fraser River run that they were not entitled to. They also received benefits of $65 million per year from our fish, which they are not entitled to.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty was negotiated in 1985. It is being renegotiated now. It's an important treaty for British Columbia. I think the federal stance is correct. We stand behind them. We have a negotiator at the table, and he's an excellent negotiator: Bill Lefeaux-Valentine. Unfortunately, the Americans do not live up to the letter or the intent of the original agreement.

R. Chisholm: The minister's line in the sand is like throwing a rock into a pond: it disappears very quickly.

For the past two years the minister has denied any responsibility for this industry -- until now, after he's forced to get involved. When will this minister have the guts to stand up for the fishermen of B.C. and stop being taken in hook, line and sinker by the Americans and John Crosbie?

[ Page 7386 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll try to avoid the clich�s -- tired ones at least.

I think the hon. member should be aware of the history of this. I'll try and explain it very briefly to you. There were two....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I ask that the House to come to order. Would the minister answer the question as briefly as possible.

Hon. B. Barlee: To do that, hon. Speaker, I must very briefly outline that there were two great salmon rivers in the world, not just in North America. One was the Columbia, the other was the Fraser. Essentially, the Americans have destroyed the fish stocks on the Columbia River by building dozens of dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. On the other hand, Canada and B.C. have been extremely careful with the Fraser River. We have not dammed or fettered the Fraser River. We've taken very good care of the stocks. The run in 1992 was the highest since 1913. Our stocks on the west coast are in extremely good shape, with the exception of two species, and I think they'll remain this way.

APPOINTMENT TO B.C. HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Can the minister confirm that the new general manager of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, Saul Schubert, worked as a deputy minister for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation under the Pawley government? Since there's no OIC for his appointment, can you tell us how Mr. Schubert was appointed? Was this position tendered in a public competition?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can confirm that Mr. Schubert is the general manager of B.C. Housing. Mr. Schubert is one of the leading experts on housing in this country. He has joined the B.C. government, and is proud to do that. Mr. Schubert was appointed by the B.C. Housing board, which is mandated to do such.

L. Fox: I'm pleased that the minister made those comments. He's obviously unaware of the project report on the performance of Mr. Schubert's department that was submitted in 1989 by Ron Hikel -- a name that I'm sure the minister knows. Is he aware that the Manitoba housing program failed in all eight areas of the review and that Peat Marwick turned thumbs down on every facet of the program Mr. Schubert managed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may have a different interpretation, but Mr. Schubert's record stands for itself. He is doing a very fine job for the people of the province, and we're very proud to have him here.

[2:30]

L. Fox: Why would this government appoint Mr. Schubert to his current position given his track record in Manitoba? Was he appointed strictly because of his NDP credentials, having worked for the Premier's office under the Schreyer government?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is getting more and more speechless every day.

NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION AND STORAGE IN THE FRASER VALLEY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. On July 5, 1991, during the lead-up to the election campaign, the Premier stated in a letter to the residents of the Fraser Valley: "I want a moratorium on natural gas exploration and storage in the Fraser Valley. I also want...59 recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation, so all questions can be answered about the environmental and economic impact of drilling and storage." Can the minister tell us where the Premier's promise went? Did it go the way of the Kamloops cancer clinic and a balanced budget?

Hon. A. Edwards: As you are probably aware, we had an extensive review process before we arrived at the decision last summer that we must follow the legal requirements under the previous government. A company had purchased leases, permits and licences, which they can do. Two companies were given a permit to drill two wells for natural gas. Those authorizations are still in place, and two of the companies -- there were three in the consortium -- have now found a third partner. They have given notice that they want to carry out that drilling under the authorization granted last summer, so that will happen.

The Speaker is asking me to hurry, but you will be pleased to know that there will be very stringent controls on anything that happens. Before anything happens, there will be a repeat referral of these applications to all of the governments involved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't recall the Premier saying anything about the legal implications having to be determined by the community, but I do see that the Premier went on to say: "New Democrats believe key decisions on land use must be made with the full participation of those who must live with the results." Can the minister tell us which people in the community she consulted before allowing these permits to go ahead?

Hon. A. Edwards: Public meetings were held in the Fraser Valley last summer, as you may well recall. A council of community people was put together to monitor what would happen under a drilling process. 

[ Page 7387 ]

This council will again be put in place to assure the community that there will be a number of very stringent requirements on the application. I have consistently met with members of that community, and I have also met with other people who have an interest. I will continue to do that, and hope that that will assure the community that this is going ahead with public process.

COST OF CLAYOQUOT SOUND FLYER

W. Hurd: Can the Minister of Forests confirm that the government is in the process of printing a flyer on Clayoquot Sound, and has decided to send it to every household in the province, at the standard taxpayer-issued cost of $300,000 or so?

Hon. D. Miller: I can confirm that we have printed a flyer -- and it's a very good one -- outlining all of the issues that attended the decision about Clayoquot Sound. It is quite legitimate. In fact, it's important that this government inform the citizens of this province about the details of that decision -- what it means to this province and to the citizens of this province -- and try to counter some of the misinformation that is being spread. Perhaps even the Liberals will decide that they might want to take a position on this issue, because they have not done so to date.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: My supplemental is in the form of an appeal to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the member is asking a supplemental question.

W. Hurd: My question is for the Minister of Finance, whose government is sending out more junk mail than Publishers Clearing House. How can the Minister of Finance justify another expenditure of $300,000 on budget facts and a litany of government propaganda that has gone out through the mail after castigating the previous government for their B.C. Government News and on the whole matter of government publications?

Hon. G. Clark: I can tell the member opposite that it's not junk mail to communicate an outstanding and balanced land use decision -- it protects some 600 Stanley Parks for preservation, preserves jobs in the Alberni Valley, protects the working forest and is consistent with sustainable development criteria -- to the people of B.C. in order to counteract the misinformation spread by members of the Liberal Party, who take one position one day and the next day take another position. It's important that we communicate the facts and the truth around important land use decisions to British Columbians so that when we move forward as a province, we move forward with sustainable development criteria, which are supported, I'm convinced, by a majority of British Columbians -- not the kind of simplistic, schizophrenic decision we see from the Liberal Party.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that I raised with the Chair this morning -- a question of privilege related to the legislation that was tabled in the House this morning by the government, dealing with the issue of adult guardianship. At that time I reserved the right to come back to the House, pending further investigation. After examining the legislation, which did receive first reading this morning in this assembly, it is obvious that this legislation was made available to the news media prior to being made available to members of this assembly. I believe that this shows a great contempt for this House, and it may constitute a breach of the privileges of all members of this assembly.

The issue that I refer to is contained in an article in this morning's Vancouver Sun, which not only gives the subject matter of the legislation but also a detailed description of the contents of the bills, including the title of a bill. Clearly there was consultation on this. We don't, in this assembly, discourage the government from engaging in a process of consultation; but the actual bills that were tabled in this House -- the legislation -- were made available to the news media prior to being tabled and receiving first reading in this assembly. Clearly that's a violation of the procedures and practices of any parliament.

Hon. Speaker, if you agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to tender the appropriate motion, which I would now like to send to you along with the article from the Vancouver Sun that I referred to.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

On the submission on the point of privilege raised, the Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the member for alerting the House to this issue this morning and therefore giving all members some opportunity to consider the matter. Hon. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read in totality the news article that appeared in the Sun this morning, but I am aware, generally, of its provisions. I'm fully aware of the fact that it does not contain all of the details that are found in the legislation. Therefore it would not....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, hon. Speaker, if the argument of the hon. member -- and of the opposition, which seems to support him -- is taken to its full measure, this government would not be permitted to engage in discussions with stakeholders, advise the public of its intentions or fulfil our election 

[ Page 7388 ]

commitment to be an open and honest government, sharing with British Columbians....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will wait until the House comes to order, hon. member. The Chair has asked for submissions on this point of privilege, after which time the Chair will consider them. I ask members to refrain from interjecting while we are receiving those submissions. Please continue, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: In sum, the public has a right to know that these matters of broad public policy are coming before the House; and the House has the right to deal first with the details of the legislation, as it will when we get into second reading debate.

The Speaker: On the submission on the point of privilege, the Opposition House Leader.

J. Dalton: I was interested in the response from the Government House Leader, but I would point out to this House that there were six bills introduced this morning. The House Leader suggested that all the detail of each of the six bills wasn't there, but I don't think the readers of the Vancouver Sun are interested in all that detail. I would reinforce one of the comments that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made in his point of privilege: one of the bill titles was in that article. Now you can't tell me, hon. Speaker, that someone in the news media did not see that bill. How else would they have known the title as included in the article?

The Speaker: I thank hon. members for their submissions on the point of privilege. The Chair will take them under advisement and return to the House at a later time.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the annual report for the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year 1991-92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 33.

I did omit to inform all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting today in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: Continuing debate of the hoist motion on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act, I stated earlier this morning that we emphatically agree with the intention of this bill and agree wholeheartedly that hate literature should be controlled and eradicated from the province. However, with the way this act is written, we are concerned that it will not do that job adequately and, at the same time, that it will infringe upon the freedom of speech needed to undertake the process that is the intention of the bill.

I also indicated this morning that it was important to enter into dialogue rather than debate in order to clarify with each other our intentions and the meaning of the processes in which we are engaged. As part of that clarification, I would like to refer to some presentations made by members of the government as they discussed this bill, because in my mind their clarification did anything but clarify. I raise these issues so that we may understand them together.

I would like to comment on the hon. minister's phrase, in her original presentation of the bill, that we do not want this kind of hatred to take root in British Columbia. We agree wholeheartedly, except that hate literature and this kind of activity have already taken root in British Columbia, and they have been throughout our province for some time. There have been many meetings and conferences of people in this province, striving to tackle this problem. So it is not a new concern; it is one that has been with us for some time.

[2:45]

When we brought forth our concerns about freedom of speech, members on the other side of the House indicated that the present legislation -- the Charter of Rights and the other legislation -- would meet all of our concerns. Yet at the same time, they went on to say that the Charter of Rights and the other legislation would not meet the concerns that they are bringing forward. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Charter of Rights and the other legislation are effective, or they aren't. Basically, we believe that they are. We should be working together to supplement them, not to replace them.

I was also interested in a newspaper comment attributed to the minister when these issues were raised with her. The newspaper quoted her, and I trust they did it right. They said that Ms. Hagen dismissed the suggestion that the new law deals with strong and outspoken language or symbols that go beyond the bounds. The concern that we have is: who determines what goes beyond the bounds? It's a very grave concern. Who determines the proper boundaries of free speech and what does not belong within its boundaries?

I will quote her again from her presentation: "This legislation provides for meaningful and real protection to individuals.... It provides a remedy that does not now exist within our laws, and the fair processes that are available to the citizens of our land...." On one 

[ Page 7389 ]

hand she says we do not have the processes, and on the other hand we hear her say that we do have the processes. Either the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a basic process that is available to all of us, or it is not. We must operate within the intention of that Charter, which guarantees the freedom of speech and of expression. What we are attempting to do here is complement that, not replace it.

We have to be concerned about the expressions put before us in the House. Again, I find within her presentation that the court ruled that the right of equality must be balanced with the right of freedom of expression. That's exactly what we're saying, and on this we agree with her. It's that balance that we're striving to put forward in this House. We believe that with the subtraction of the right of freedom of expression from the existing bill, that balance has been thrown out altogether. Within that same comment she also said that the Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that courts and human rights tribunals must balance freedom of expression with the rights of the individual not to be discriminated against. It's that balance that we're arguing for. We would urge this government to reconsider their bill in order to bring that balance into place.

In that same presentation the hon. minister said that we're not dealing here with criminal proceedings involving jail sentences or heavy fines. I believe she's referring to the fact that the Council of Human Rights does not impose jail sentences or heavy fines. They do impose levies, though, and whether those levies are heavy or not is a matter of interpretation. But in the stress that this government has put on decriminalizing the concerns of hate literature, it seems to me that they have downplayed the significance of that hate literature. They have said it's not that important. It's like a parking ticket; it really isn't significant. You get a slap on the wrist, and that's it.

On one side we say that's not good enough. But on the other side we discover that what happens in the Council of Human Rights is that this becomes a public issue. Persons who are brought before this council -- even if they are found innocent -- have had their innocence denied in the very way they have been treated in the public eye. They themselves become the victim. That kind of victimization is not recognized in the material that has been brought forward. It is assumed that everyone who is brought before the Council of Human Rights is guilty until proven innocent. That's the kind of feeling we have about this. Everyone who is charged, reported or brought before the council has that kind of black mark against them. Even if the council says that it is an unjustified accusation and throws it out, the harm has already been done. So in the very attempt to serve the victims, we are in danger of creating more victims. That's the concern that we have to think about very seriously within this House.

I refer again to the minister's comment: "The amendments that we are looking at today provide us with one of the tools for people to take action with when we have extreme expressions...." But who decides when they're extreme expressions? There is a judgment in the public eye being presented here that we have to be concerned about. The very minority groups that we want to protect need the opportunity to be able to speak out against the people who are trying to malign them. In the very attempt to speak out in defence of themselves, this act puts them in jeopardy of being accused of the very thing that they say has been brought against them. We are trying to bring that conflict before this House to clearly distinguish what we are accomplishing as we bring this act forward.

When the member for Vancouver-Kensington was talking about his concern about this act, he commented that you have to be able to balance the rights of the minorities and the rights that we enjoy as Canadians. It may have been a slip of his expression, but he seemed to say that the rights of the minorities are something different from the rights that we enjoy as Canadians. I want to clarify that all of us who live within Canada and who are part of the minorities of Canada -- because Canada does not have a majority any more -- have the same rights and privileges under the law within our jurisdictions. There is no difference; all of us have those same rights. I grant that we are not all treated the same. All of us have had prejudices expressed against us, to some degree. We are concerned that some people have had to face those extremes more than others. The danger in trying to respond to that is that we need to be careful about what we are trying to do.

It seems to me that one of the realities is that we are trying to change the traditions and customs by which we live and work and respond to each other. We are trying to change the terminology we use; we're trying to change the organization we use; and we're trying to change the system in which we relate to each other. Traditions are not changed primarily by legislation; they are changed by the interaction of people who become aware of each other, get to know each other and begin to trust each other. One of the realities in our present-day communities is that the young people who live and play and work with each other in school, and who have come to know each other, have a better understanding of the traditions as they change than we of the older generation. If we are primarily trying to change the older generation -- who have found it difficult to change their ways of speaking, thinking and acting, we do not necessarily do that through legislation. We do that through education; through bringing people together and enabling them to work with each other.

Another statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington was: "We want to make it easier for the people of B.C. to access the remedies available to them and to decriminalize the process of hate literature...." Is that the right direction in which to go? If we decriminalized the process of hate literature -- if it is now criminalized, as he suggests -- does that make it that much easier to obtain and to make available to people, because there is no longer the same fear or threat as there was before? Is it the intention we are actually undertaking in our action?

I am also concerned that as we talk about literature and begin to bring to the fore, in an easier way than we have before, objections to literature that we do not 

[ Page 7390 ]

approve of, perhaps we will find far greater pressure to remove many more books from the bookshelves of our school libraries, which others have been trying to remove for years. Where does that start, and where does it stop? That's the kind of pressure we'll be bringing to our local school boards and school librarians. This will have a direct bearing upon them, and I'm sure that the Minister of Education is very aware of that particular fact.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that the courts of the land have been defining terms and words for us for a long time. He said this in reaction to questions raised about the definitions of the many new words and phrases that have been inserted into this act. What does hatred, contempt, issue or statement mean within the definitions in this act? Those are new expressions. What does private communication mean within this act? According to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, we will have to wait until we see the court's definition of these terms before we know what they mean. Or, as has been suggested by others, the definitions will be put together by the Council of Human Rights. But we are not aware of how they will arrive at those definitions or what base of reference they will use for them. So there is a concern here that we need to have clearer definitions to clarify the meaning of the act that has been put before us.

[3:00]

The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that it is important to remember what this amendment does: it brings the matter of hate literature and propaganda under the Human Rights Act. What do we mean when we refer to propaganda? As we look at this act, it extends further and further into areas that are undefined, vague and unclear. It is important that we go to the public with a clear and balanced presentation, and that we affirm that hate literature must be overcome and that all acts of hatred directed at other people must be prevented. But we cannot do it by taking away the right of freedom of speech. We must have a balance. We urge the government to reconsider, clarify and alter their presentation.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if I might have permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: The member for North Island, the Attorney General, is out of the chamber today and out of the precincts. In the gallery are 14 grade 6 students from Central Elementary School in his constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. S. Koebel, and I think a parent is also accompanying them. Would the House please make them welcome today.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment to Bill 33, I will now call the question. For the information of the House, the motion before you is that the second reading of Bill 33 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to take my part in this debate, because it seems to me that to this point it has been a debate very much founded upon misunderstanding and misinformation. I think perhaps I can make a small contribution in terms of correcting some of that misunderstanding and providing some better information.

I don't intend to use my time today to dwell on the fact that hate activities and hate propaganda pose a real threat to our society. In a province that prides itself on its diversity, I think it's self-evident that such activities undermine the dignity and self-worth of individuals and communities, that they erode the climate of tolerance and mutual respect that must flourish in a society committed to equality, and that they may incite further hatred and possibly violence.

I also don't intend to spend time pointing to gaps in the existing measures that seek to protect against the spread of hate literature, hate symbols and other hate material. Those gaps have been well referred to by the Minister Responsible for Human Rights and by other speakers in this debate. Similar arguments have also been made by the Canadian Bar Association, which advocates the inclusion of prohibitions against the propagation of hate in provincial human rights statutes, and by numerous community organizations that have called upon the government to enact the measures in the bill we are debating.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

My intention today is to address an issue that has been very much at the heart of the arguments we have heard from the opposition. This issue was summed up yesterday by one well-known columnist, who 

[ Page 7391 ]

speculated that the government had thrown out explicit protection for freedom of expression, intending to give less weight to that fundamental right. Hon. Speaker, that suggestion is just plain wrong. This government fully supports the fundamental right of freedom of expression. We fully recognize that the Charter of Rights requires that the only tolerable limits on this right are those that can be justified in a free and democratic society as being reasonable limits. That's what the Charter says.

What, then, of questions about this bill and its impact on freedom of expression? It is misleading to attach the significance that the opposition has tried to attach to the absence of protection for an expressive activity in a human rights statute. An explicit protection of freedom of expression is not a necessary component of a provincial human rights statute. This question was specifically dealt with in an important 1989 Supreme Court of Canada case, the Taylor case. John Taylor, who was the leader of the Western Guard Party, appealed a Canadian Human Rights Commission order that he and his organization cease and desist from communicating messages denigrating the Jewish race and religion.

One of the arguments brought forward by civil liberties groups was that the Canadian Human Rights Act was flawed in that it did not contain an explicit exemption designed to protect freedom of expression. Does it sound like a familiar argument? Those making the argument referred to a number of provincial human rights statutes that contain such exemptions and argued that the absence of such a provision made the federal statute imbalanced and overly broad.

Before turning to the majority decision rendered in the Supreme Court on this issue, I think it's important for me to note that our research shows that every provincial statute containing such an exemption was enacted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. This is the case with our own province's Human Rights Act, which was first enacted in 1969 with the expression provision included. This is an important point to which I will return.

[3:15]

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the cease-and-desist order made by the commission pursuant to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the Taylor case. The court upheld the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a reasonable and justifiable limit on freedom of expression in a free and democratic society. Most important for today's debate, on behalf of the majority of the court Chief Justice Dickson had the following to say. I really want to go through this judgment somewhat carefully, because I think it points out some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that have been attached to this legislation. Here is what Chief Justice Brian Dickson, probably the greatest jurist in this century in Canada, said about human rights legislation generally:

"Though not wishing to disparage legislative efforts to bolster the guarantee of free expression, for several reasons I think it mistaken to place too great an emphasis upon the explicit protection of expressive activity in a human rights statute." And further: "...having decided that there exists an objective in restricting hate propaganda of sufficient importance to warrant placing some limits upon the freedom of expression, it would be incongruous to require that section 13(1) exempt all activity falling under the rubric of `expression'."

What the Supreme Court said in the Taylor case holds for our province's Human Rights Act. A human rights statute does not require an explicit exemption on free speech for it to be balanced legislation. In fact, as Chief Justice Dickson said, such an exemption would be incongruous. It would, if anything, throw the legislation out of balance; it would be incongruous with the intent of such legislation.

The Chief Justice and the majority of the Supreme Court did not offer this opinion because they did not understand the importance of free speech. Their suggestion that a free speech exemption is incongruous with prohibitions on hate activity was not based on a belief that the tribunals should operate in an unbalanced fashion. Chief Justice Dickson went on to explain the decision in this way: "Perhaps the so-called exemptions found in many human rights statutes are best seen as indicating to human rights tribunals the necessity of balancing the objective of eradicating discrimination with the need to protect free expression...." The court is telling us with that quote that when these laws were enacted prior to the Charter, the legislators who passed them most likely wanted to ensure that human rights councils and commissions understood the need to balance two important interests in their decisions. What the court is also telling us is that such direction was and remains unnecessary. It was unnecessary at the time because, to quote again from the decision: "I say this with an eye to pre-Charter cases in which freedom of expression is discussed, these making it evident that an interpretive stance designed to prevent the undue infringement of freedom of expression is available to the courts...." In short, the court had already decided that the right to freedom of expression could not be unduly infringed. Human rights tribunals did not need to be explicitly told.

The Supreme Court also tells us that today an explicit exemption for freedom of expression is unnecessary because of the common law and Charter rights; and the B.C. Human Rights Act, as with any law in Canada, is subject to the Charter. I'm not sure members opposite realize this, but the Charter is, after all, the supreme law. The Charter takes priority over and governs the human rights law. The operations of the B.C. human rights council, with or without an exemption for free speech, is subject to the Charter requirements to place no limits on free speech that are unreasonable in a free and democratic society. Members of the opposition and members of the media have argued that the Human Rights Act must contain an explicit exemption for freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court of Canada has firmly established that it need not do so and that freedom of speech is not impaired without such an exemption, and I know who I believe.

One may ask, and I think I heard a few members across the way asking: "Why should the words not simply be returned to the act? Why do we not simply revert to the previous language?" This was suggested 

[ Page 7392 ]

two days ago by a Vancouver Sun editorial. If members aren't familiar with that editorial, I'll provide them with an extract entitled "A Misguided Act Against Hatred." Here's what the editorial said: "Opposition politicians claim the government wants to use amendments to muzzle right-wing newspaper columnists and that other enemies of the government could be next. Hagen says that's not so. The simplest way for her to prove her point is to retain the free speech protection. We are better off with a bit of redundancy...."

Here the minister and the government are offered what is described as a "simple option": just restore the bill to its original wording.

If these issues were as simple as some suggest, it would not have taken the Supreme Court a year to hear and deliberate in the Taylor case. Be that as it may, I want to remind members of that Supreme Court decision. It said it is a mistake to insist that the Human Rights Act have free speech exemptions; it is a mistake to say that an act without such exemptions is imbalanced. That's what the Supreme Court said. The opposition is mistaken to insist upon such exemptions. Having observed it was a mistake, the court didn't go on to say that such exemptions are a tolerable redundancy. The court went on to say that such exemptions would be incongruous with the intent of the provisions we are placing in the human rights legislation. They would be incongruous. The intended effect of a free speech exemption, the protection of freedom of expression, is achieved outside of the act itself through many years of jurisprudence and a constitution that says those rights are protected. If we were to bring the language of our current Human Rights Act back into the legislation, we would not simply be redundant, we would be in danger of actually undermining that act by ignoring the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. We would be introducing language that the Supreme Court has identified as incongruous with the intent of this bill.

Deleting the exemption for freedom of expression actually brings the Human Rights Act in line with what the Supreme Court has determined is appropriate for such legislation, with no less regard for the importance of the fundamental right of freedom of expression. In fact, as has been accurately argued in this assembly, by removing the reference to the 1981 Civil Rights Protection Act, freedom of expression has been enhanced over the status quo. This is because the pre-Charter Civil Rights Protection Act presumes to limit what persons may say in private, something we know today to be suspect constitutionally.

I'm not surprised that some members of the public, and perhaps some members of the media, could be led to believe the government has somehow abandoned protection for free speech -- though it's clear that we haven't done so. I'm not surprised that this perception could exist, because that is exactly the misconception that the opposition has tried to promote. Rather than dealing with the substance of the bill, rather than looking at what the Supreme Court has said in the substance of its decisions, the opposition has chosen to try to turn this issue into a political issue that ignores the substance of both the bill and the courts.

The intent of the bill is clear. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to all Canadians the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The charter allows no limits on expression except those that are reasonable in a free and democratic society. What we do not have in B.C. is an effective recourse for citizens whose own rights are infringed by those who would go beyond the line of reasonableness and abuse their freedom of expression in order to cause harm to others. This bill provides that recourse which exists in many other Canadian provinces, and which B.C. is late in providing. This is the intent here today, and this is the issue.

The opposition may choose an easy and politically opportune route. They mouth support for the goals of the legislation, and then attack the bill by misrepresenting its impact on freedom of expression. That's the easy route. On these issues it's much easier to hide, to deliberately misunderstand and to refuse to come out and say where you stand.

The members opposite might want to read the Taylor decision. I encourage them to do so. They might try to understand the argument that they have made in light of the Taylor decision. What they'll find is that their argument does not make sense. The Supreme Court did not seek an unbalanced piece of legislation. It would not have voiced support for the deletion of a provision that would have led to any of the consequences suggested by the members opposite. If they read that decision, hopefully they will come to their senses. And having come to their senses, I hope they will put aside these silly political arguments and share with us -- with this assembly and with the communities that we are seeking to protect -- exactly where they stand on this bill.

I am proud that our government has made its position clear. It is a position that is supported by the courts, it is one that we can all be proud of, and one that we should all support.

C. Tanner: I rise to speak on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act. I would like to specifically address two things that have affected my business and personal life for the last 25 to 30 years: publishing or displaying material. It is not the position of this side of the House that what the government is attempting is wrong; the position is that we don't need it. It's an unneeded piece of legislation, because we are already protected.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time for members such as yourself -- the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- the member for Abbotsford and even the member for Saanich South. I have no problem with members like yourself, Mr. Speaker, who have things to say and are speaking from the heart or from conviction, but I am offended by members such as the member for Vancouver-Hastings who stands up in her full self-righteousness and tells the rest of us on this side of the House that we're wrong because she doesn't agree with us. That's what we take offence at.

An Hon. Member: You're never wrong.

[ Page 7393 ]

C. Tanner: No, we are wrong. We make mistakes, but we're prepared to admit it. The trouble is that members on that side of the House have to tell everybody else how to think; they have to decide for everybody else what is right and what is wrong. That's what we object to.

All my business life I have walked a delicate line, because I am in the bookselling business. It's a very difficult place to be, because no matter which way you go you're bound to offend somebody. It has always been my proposition in that industry that the public will make the decision as to what they want to read, not me.

When I first went into business 25 years ago I was in an area which had a huge selection of magazines. When I looked the magazines over I made a decision -- wrongly -- that some of them shouldn't be sold. I took them away from the display, because I thought I knew better than the public. The first two people who came to my place of business were the local judge and the local librarian, and they said: "Who do you think you are to remove that material from that shelf? I think it's garbage, but I don't think you've got the right, Mr. Tanner, to take that material off the shelf and deny the right for somebody else to read it if they want to." Ever since, that has been the premise of the business I have been in. I was wrong. The judge and the librarian were right.

An Hon. Member: We're talking about hate literature.

C. Tanner: I'm talking about literature that, in my opinion, should not have been available to the public.

I would like to refer all members of this House to three specific incidents that have happened in my place of business in the last ten years. In 1980 we had a book that was written about the Olson case. In my view, and in the view of many of my hundreds of customers, it wasn't a book that I wanted to sell, but some people asked for it. We put it in our display and we sold some. I thought it was disgusting. I thought it made more of the case than was necessary and exploited all the wrong aspects of the case. But the fact of the matter was that it wasn't my place, nor was it some nebulous committee's place, to determine if the public wanted to read it or not, in my view.

In the middle eighties Salman Rushdie wrote a book, and he is now in hiding because a particular facet of thought said that he shouldn't publish that book. A committee in a foreign country said to Mr. Rushdie: "That book is not acceptable to us, and if we find you, we're going to kill you." Bookstores across this country put that book in their window and were attacked for doing so. I proudly put that book in my window, because I thought that we have a right to read that book, and Mr. Rushdie had a right to write it.

[3:30]

In my store I presently sell -- and I'm ashamed to say it, because I don't like the book at all -- a book called Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, which was written by a gentleman in eastern Canada. He wrote a second book called Enough. The book, in my view, is absolute nonsense. It's written by James Vernon Andrew. It's his contention that if we have a bilingual country today, eventually we will all be French. This man has a hatred for the French part of our population. But I have customers who come in and insist on getting it. We don't carry it in the store, but we'll order it for them. I look at the people who buy this garbage and wonder what on earth they believe in. But they have a right to read it, and I do not have the right, nor has any nebulous committee, to stop them from reading it if they want it.

It might come as a surprise to some members of this House that we have censorship in the province right now. I'm not only in the book business; in the past I have been in the magazine business. There is censorship at our border right now. Nebulous customs officers make a decision about what you can read. It happens beyond our control, at our borders, by federal servants.

There is a second, unknown censorship in this province right now on magazines that are available to you. The publishers and distributors of magazines in British Columbia have an organization which looks at certain magazines and makes a decision, after they've arrived in B.C., as to whether or not they're going to be distributed. I object to that, but I can't do anything about it, because the distribution of magazines is tied up in a limited number of suppliers. In fact, it's a cartel set up on a geographic basis right across the country. In British Columbia there are about four or five suppliers, and they make the decision as to what you and I can read. I think that's wrong.

The other unfortunate circumstance of what the government is suggesting in this legislation is that if they bring it in, it's going to drive it underground. It's still going to be available to people who want to read the garbage, and it's still going to be here for people to look at it if they want to, to substantiate their beliefs, which in my opinion are wrong, but we won't even see it, because it will be underground. I believe that this legislation is unnecessary and that we have sufficient controls now. I believe that the only way we're going to change is by way of education, edification and example.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the great respect I have for you and for the speech you made two days ago, I'm afraid that I don't agree with you. The only way to go is to leave the legislation alone and let people make up their own minds. These hatemongers, who are among us and whom we of course don't approve of, have to learn, by way of illustration and education, that they're not welcome in our society. We have to try to change their minds.

There is a fine distinction to be made between the public expression of discrimination and the act of discrimination, and I think you do away with that when you bring this legislation in. Every member on every side of the House has spoken with sincerity -- with a couple of exceptions -- and I don't think either side is blaming the other or in any way promoting the use of hate literature for anybody. I think we all want the same thing. The government is approaching it in the wrong way, and we are merely defending our position. Since the government wouldn't agree to hoist this bill for six months to give it some more consideration and get some more public input, we think the government 

[ Page 7394 ]

should let it die on the order paper. If the government continues to want to put this sort of legislation in place, this member and this caucus will be voting against it.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophy and principle of Bill 33. I've listened over the course of the last several days to all presentations with respect to this bill, and most of them -- and specifically the one that you yourself gave, hon. Speaker -- struck home to me. As an individual, I, like other individuals within this Legislature, have faced the kinds of situations that this legislation appears to want to deal with, and I think that's very commendable. I don't believe there's a member in the Legislature who doesn't want to enact some type of capability for dealing with hate literature and placards that discriminate, or the many other issues, that we see daily, where one segment of society is being oppressed or discriminated against by others within the same society.

I believe it is a very noble objective, but I'm concerned. When the member for Nelson-Creston spoke, he identified violence and the kind of public mischief that turns into violence. It is his perception that this bill is going to legislate that out of existence. I'm of the firm belief that no legislation can put an end to hate. No legislation can put an end to discrimination. No legislation can teach us to love one another and accept one another's values. That's something we have to be taught. It's something we learn through a process from the home to the school system to the post-secondary education system. It's something that has to be promoted on a regular basis by the community and the society -- by all organizations collectively.

What I see in this legislation concerns me, because it appears that somehow, magically, we're going to have selective free speech. It appears that at some point in time the government or the authority created under this act could in fact come down on me for my thoughts and my speech. I know that the government side has put forward many arguments to suggest that this is not so. I've had many phone calls from individuals who suggest that it is so. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an academic. I'm an average British Columbian, and I have to rely on what I'm told by individuals who are knowledgeable in the civil rights area and who are extremely concerned about human rights throughout Canada and British Columbia. The support that was given by the Canadian Jewish Congress, who I believe are leaders in the field, was conditional on the fact that they wanted more consultation. They want the opportunity to peruse the bill themselves and to discuss with its proponents exactly what the results will be. Obviously they want their legal people to look at it as well and to advise them on it.

The message I'm hearing constantly is that nobody opposes the intent of the bill and what the government wants to do. Even in this Legislature I haven't heard one individual oppose what this bill wishes to do. But everyone I've talked and listened to is extremely concerned. In a way, it's sad to see the emotions that have come forward in the House, because this is an extremely difficult and extremely important piece of legislation. It deserves the concentration and consideration of all of us in this House and all British Columbians.

Let me point out a couple of concerns that I have. These are genuine concerns from an average British Columbian's perspective. The first concern I have is that it appears that this bill now puts the onus on an individual or individuals to prove that they are not liable. If a claim is made against something you -- or a corporation, perhaps -- have said or published, the onus appears to be on you to prove that that does not fall under the categories embraced within this legislation. Those are concerns that I have, because if you read the legislation very clearly it seems to suggest that if you do anything that borders on these particular areas, you will have to prove that you did not mean to discriminate or prejudice any other individual.

I'm confused, and I look forward to the committee stage, as I think most British Columbians do. I really hope that this government will go through second reading of this bill and then allow it to sit for a considerable time, so that British Columbians can be satisfied that the intent of this bill is only what members of the government side are suggesting it is.

There's no question in my mind that something has to be strengthened in our court system. In some way, judges have to have the capabilities to deal with issues, particularly hatred, and those issues that you, hon. Speaker, spoke of two days ago. But I'm concerned that the pendulum will swing so far that we will suppress individuals. We will suppress the ability of individuals to express themselves in a way that they should be able to express themselves in today's society.

Hon. Speaker, I hope that I've been able to make a contribution from the perspective of an average British Columbian. I really hope that the government will seriously consider allowing some time before this legislation goes through third reading stage and is enacted into law, to allow all interested parties in British Columbia an adequate opportunity to have input on this legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to engage in this debate. Given the duties of cabinet, it's not that often that one gets an opportunity to debate legislation in this chamber; that's often restricted to cabinet. Therefore it's a special privilege for me.... I must confess I'm very keen -- in fact, I want very deeply to take my place in this debate and deal with the issues before this chamber.

As I have listened to the debate -- indeed, I've taken the occasion to read what other members have had to say, particularly on the opposition side.... The more I reflect on the comments that are made, it seems to me that there are two things that all of us agree on. We all agree, on both sides of this House, that freedom of expression and freedom of speech must flourish in a country such as ours. We also all agree, each and every one of us in this chamber, that there is no place whatsoever in society for hate literature and propaganda.

[3:45]

We have before this House legislation that tries to deal with the conflict in rights, if I can put it that way, 

[ Page 7395 ]

that arises when we try to strike a balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the right of people to be treated with dignity and respect on the other -- which is of course a basic requirement in a society such as ours. The real question is: does this legislation achieve the kind of balance we think is necessary in a free and democratic society? I must confess, as I've listened to the speeches made by the opposition -- and I don't mean this in the big-P political sense; I mean this quite sincerely -- that I am disappointed by the extent to which they have failed to pay attention to the concerns of those who are the victims of hate literature. I want to amplify that point in a few minutes.

I want to start with a reflection on those two things that we agree on. First is freedom of expression. You know, we're very lucky to live in the kind of country we live in. When the rest of the world looks at Canada, it sees a jewel of a nation. We are among the most blessed citizens in the world because we live in a country that is not only a model of peace and coexistence but also a country that has tried to encourage other nations of the world to follow that model of peace and coexistence. We are a leader in the world because of the kind of work we have done through the United Nations and other international organizations in trying to encourage development elsewhere of the kind of society that is the case here in Canada.

We're lucky in this country. People come to this country because they've been persecuted elsewhere and they want to come to Canada -- a magical place in their eyes. It's a place that we often take for granted. It's a magical place with the freedoms that they dream of. These freedoms exist, in part, because a lot of people in this country some time ago dedicated their lives -- indeed, sacrificed their lives -- to create a country where these kinds of freedoms would exist: freedom of expression, the freedom to peacefully assemble, the right to demonstrate.

With the military presence in my own riding of Esquimalt, I know only too well the kinds of sacrifices people have had to make so that we can enjoy the kind of nation we have. In many ways, a lot of the things we talk about in this chamber seem almost trivial in comparison to the kinds of things that those people fought for and made sure that we're able to enjoy as citizens.

I represent a political party that stood up and said that laws paying Indo-Canadians or Asians or Orientals 10 cents an hour less than everybody else to work in a mill were wrong. They did so when it was unpopular to say that and when it was unpopular to say these people should have the right to vote and the right to citizenship. It took some courage on the part of people like Mr. Winch, Mr. Strachan and Mr. Douglas, and yes, Mr. Barrett, to stand up and fight for the kinds of rights that we now take for granted. So long as I am a New Democrat and a citizen of this country, I will stand up and speak as passionately as I can for a country where freedom of speech flourishes. There is no doubt in my mind that every member of my caucus who spoke about this legislation feels as strongly as I do about the need to maintain a society where freedom of speech flourishes. The only way a free and open society can progress and be productive is if there is open and free dialogue, without any threat of reprisal or action. That's the kind of Canada we've built; that's the kind of British Columbia we want.

It is wrong, in my view, for some to argue this debate is solely about freedom of expression; it isn't. It is a debate about justifiable limitations on freedom of expression. We cherish freedom of expression in this country. To restrict it we are only prepared to nibble at the very outside contours of that freedom. We do that through libel and slander laws when we say that people can't abuse their right of free speech in that fashion. We say inferentially that with every right comes a responsibility. We say that in our own Charter of Rights, the supreme law of this country, which says -- if I can paraphrase the words of the Charter -- that all freedoms, including freedom of speech, are subject to reasonable limitations. We implicitly recognize in our Charter that no right is absolute, that there are limitations on rights.

The question in this debate is whether or not this legislation places an adequate or justifiable intrusion on the right to freedom of speech. I say that it does. I say that, because I believe, as do all hon. members in this House, that there is no place for hate literature in this province. There's no place for the dissemination of that kind of information.

Maybe it's political or maybe it's philosophical, I don't know, because it gets confusing when you read the speeches, but for some reason we have become fixated on the omission of certain words from the existing section 2(2) that says: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." That's what we've become fixated on. During the course of this debate, either because of political posturing or ideological differences, we have somehow become armchair lawyers trying to determine the import of the elimination of those words.

When I look at it -- maybe from my training or my own ideological background and, if I may be honest, probably a little bit of both -- I wonder: does the omission of those words in section 2(2) of the current legislation mean that freedom of speech is somehow denied? When you listen to the speeches, and particularly to what the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, had to say, one is left with the impression that somehow with this legislation the government is denying freedom of speech. Of course that's not the case. We believe in the Charter. We in this party have a heritage of protecting those rights and standing up for the amplification of those rights.

All of us in this chamber must recognize that the Charter exists. It is the supreme law of this country. It colours every piece of legislation in this country. This legislation is therefore coloured by the provisions in the Charter which say freedom of expression must continue to exist in this nation of ours. This legislation must be read in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what we have been arguing. You don't need those words in this legislation. They are 

[ Page 7396 ]

there because the Charter exists. If you argue that that's not true, then they exist because our common law demands that they exist. Why do I say that? Because we have a common law heritage, throughout the Commonwealth, that the jurisprudence we have developed, absent of statutes in our common law, pays homage to the principle of freedom of expression. Even if it weren't stated in the Charter, even if the Charter didn't exist, the common law would demand that all legislation be read in the context of the existence of freedom of speech.

During the course of this debate some have argued that we are wrong in making those points. There might be some validity to the arguments they made, had it not been for the fact that recently there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that looked at this very issue, thank God. It looked at the issue of balancing freedom of speech and the absence of freedom of speech provisions for hate literature. My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said:

"Though not wishing to disparage legislative efforts to bolster the guarantee of free expression, for several reasons I think it mistaken to place too great an emphasis upon the explicit protection of expressive activity in a human rights statute. First, though not necessarily damaging to the appellants' argument, it is worth noting that the Canadian, Quebec and Yukon Territory human rights statutes contain no such protective element...."

In any event, I do not think it in error to say that in the absence of such an exemption an interpretation of section 13(1) consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech is necessary.

The court said, if I may quote again: "Second, having decided that there exists an objective in restricting hate propaganda of sufficient importance to warrant placing some limits upon the freedom of expression, it would be incongruous to require that section 13(1) exempt all activity falling under the rubric of `expression'." The highest court in Canada has said very clearly that you don't need a specific reference to freedom of expression in this kind of legislation. It's there because the Charter says it has to be there and our common law tradition says it has to be there. And now in the Taylor decision the courts have said it is recognized to be there. There is no need for the kind of provision that some argue has to be there. Mr. Justice Dickson has made it very clear that we don't need that provision. Let's not forget what Mr. Justice Dickson said in trying to reconcile freedom of speech and this kind of legislation. He said: "Hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. It undermines the dignity and self-worth of target-group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality."

Yesterday in this chamber someone quoted Martin Luther King -- actually, they may have quoted him incorrectly, but that's beside the point -- and I want to quote him again: "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

[4:00]

I was born in this country. I grew up just down the road. I was born in Duncan, and I grew up in Lake Cowichan. Even though I grew up here, I couldn't speak English until I went to kindergarten. I grew up as a kid pretending I was Johnny Bower or Joe Kapp in Punjabi. At school I learned how to speak English, and I had a lot of experiences. The vast majority of those experiences were good. There was the odd occasion -- the very odd occasion, which I think, again, is testimony to the kind of country that we live in -- where you felt, as a human being, that perhaps some people looked at you differently because of the way you looked.

I read what you had to say, hon. Speaker, and I must commend you for the words that you uttered in this House. I could relate when you talked about the anger that people feel, the stiff upper lip that one has to show from time to time and the strength of conviction that you need to work around certain problems. You don't, I believe -- and I know that you said as much -- fight anger with violence; you try to deal with it as a human being. You try to go on and show people that you're just as capable as anybody else, if not more, and that not only are all of us equal but all of us should have the opportunity to achieve and maximize our potential as human beings, regardless of any barriers that may be created from time to time. I don't want to say that this has happened much to me; I'm just saying that there are occasions when one senses that people look at you and treat you differently. Something inside of me, when the Minister of Education tabled this legislation, just kind of collapsed with relief. Something inside of me, not because of my political background or anything else, said: well done. Something inside of me said: for once, someone understands. Something inside of me said: there's someone who's speaking for the way that I've felt.

There are those who argue that referring these matters to a quasi-judicial body -- one that's politically appointed, I guess they say -- means that it will be easy for people to take inappropriate cases before the human rights council. I think those who make that argument are sometimes oblivious to the feelings of victims of this kind of material. Victims of hate propaganda in this country or this province have the recourse to proceed under the Civil Rights Protection Act. There's never been a prosecution under that act. It's ineffective legislation. Multicultural groups and others have argued for years that the legislation is ineffective and full of loopholes and really cannot protect the victims of hate propaganda. Victims have another option: they can lay a complaint under provisions of the Criminal Code, and some have exercised that option. But too many in society have been left without options; too many have been left without a vehicle through which they can lay a complaint. This legislation provides them with that vehicle.

It may be that there are some inappropriate cases, but I don't think we should structure our legislation in such a way as to increase the legal threshold so much 

[ Page 7397 ]

that it's impossible for someone to have access to these vehicles. The fear that someone's rights might be inappropriately brought before the commission should not drive us to establish legal impediments so as to totally deny the victim a remedy. To leave it only within the purview of the Civil Rights Protection Act, which is wholly ineffective legislation, or within the Criminal code, where one doesn't have access to civil action, is wrong.

Some argue that there is a plot on the part of this government to engage in selective free-speech-policing. Well, that's wrong. It would be wrong for any government to do that. The government doesn't have any intentions in that regard.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I notice the leader of the Liberal Party heckling me a bit. Yesterday he said something to the effect that social action, the action of informed and intelligent people, will rally against any unacceptable behaviour -- and he's right. Indeed, if this council was structured in a such a fashion that it would be a thought police -- as someone said -- engaging in selective free-speech-monitoring, I think the public would rise up in arms, as it appropriately should. But that's not the case here.

We are turning over the determination with regard to these issues to a quasi-judicial body. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that in the past this quasi-judicial body has operated under a political mandate. I find it abhorrent that some would suggest that it will now revert to that kind of behaviour. That's untrue. It hasn't done it in the past, and the opposition should show enough respect for the members of that quasi-judicial body to recognize that they will not succumb to political pressures. As we said at the outset, they will make difficult decisions to try to strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the need to make sure that people are treated with dignity, that their self-respect as individuals is recognized and that they have equality of opportunity and the right to take issue against hate propaganda.

We as a government are drawing a line with this legislation. As I said at the outset, we are saying that freedom of speech exists in British Columbia and that it must flourish. But we're also saying that there is no place whatsoever in British Columbia for hate literature.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to repeat myself because the Leader of the Opposition -- I'm sorry, the Liberal Party leader; I get confused because they have so many leaders at different times -- left the room for a while and didn't hear what I had to say. I would ask him to reflect on my comments in their totality so he can understand the context within which I put this -- much as I have reflected on and referred to the speech he made in this House yesterday -- instead of engaging in modest heckling in the House today.

I support this legislation, because I don't think that any tribunal, quasi-judicial body or court -- and all of them will have a chance to take a look at this legislation -- will be able to read this legislation as reading down the rights of all citizens to freedom of expression. I also support this legislation because I believe that any quasi-judicial body, any court, any person in British Columbia that looks at this legislation will also read it as legislation that is determined to correct a wrong, not just in terms of hate literature, but in terms of a civil rights protection statute that is wholly inadequate and which does not protect the rights of the victims of hate propaganda; and that corrects the wrong of allowing people the only avenue they have right now, that of Criminal Code actions. I have no problem with using the Criminal Code provisions, but there must be another avenue.

As I said at the outset, I believe that inasmuch as all of us in this chamber agree that freedom of speech must exist and that there must be laws against hate propaganda, this quasi-judicial body has the skills, experience, aptitude and mandate to try to reconcile those areas where the right to freedom of expression overlaps with the kinds of wrongs we are trying to correct in this type of legislation. Surely to God, if we can agree that freedom of expression should flourish, if we can agree that there is no place for hate propaganda, if we can agree that the Civil Rights Protection Act hasn't done the job of adequately policing these things, and if we can agree that the Criminal Code ought not to be the only avenue available, then we can agree that these matters should be adjudicated in front of a quasi-judicial tribunal -- the human rights council -- and hope that it can provide the protection so deeply deserved by those who are victims of hate literature and who have for so long been denied the protection that this legislation, in all sincerity, tries to provide them.

Finally, as I said at the outset, it's not every day I get an opportunity to speak in this chamber, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak on this legislation. I hope that we can put aside big-P political differences, recognize the challenge that this legislation presents to the human rights council, get away from trying to make political Brownie points, and get away from trying to edge ourselves into editorial comment or into the columns written by opinion leaders. This is a difficult debate. These are challenging issues. These are conflicting principles. But I think a sober reflection on this legislation will lead one to conclude that it is the right way to go.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise to speak in this debate on Bill 33, the amendments to the Human Rights Act. I am especially pleased to be following the Government House Leader, who, I think, has presented one of the most convincing attempts to rationalize these amendments to the Human Rights Act yet. Nice try, but I'm not buying, because even though the Government House Leader has made some good comments -- and I think members of the assembly will take to heart the personal comments that he made -- he still hasn't justified why an ill-thought-out piece of legislation has 

[ Page 7398 ]

been able to come forward. He still hasn't justified why the legislative program of this government -- which is in disarray and in a state of complete chaos -- has produced this bill. It should never have made it past the legislative draftman's office. The Government House Leader made some very good comments that correctly identify the attitudes of all members of this assembly. I don't think this is a partisan issue by any means. Hopefully, this is not an issue where party politics will intrude into the debate. There has been some very good debate so far on this bill. But the question of why these amendments have been introduced has still not been answered.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Before I proceed any further with my comments, I'd like to take a second to highlight what this very brief bill attempts to do. It eliminates section 2 of the existing Human Rights Act. The Government House Leader tried to explain one more time why the government has done this. It's still not an argument that holds water. The repeal of section 2 eliminates the provincial guarantee of freedom of expression -- the right of free expression or opinion by speech or written word. Why the government proposes to eliminate that section of the existing Human Rights Act still hasn't been adequately explained, by any means.

[4:15]

The bill goes one step further; it changes some wording. Our role as legislators is to scrutinize very closely the wording of proposed legislation in this House. Not all of us are lawyers -- I'm certainly not. But I think we need to pay very careful attention to a bill that attempts to amend the Human Rights Act. What this bill does is something very interesting. It goes well beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It goes well beyond what the Criminal Code of our land seeks to do. It engages in some very interesting language changes that make the amendments to the act, stated in this bill, so broad, vague and ambiguous that their interpretation cannot be guaranteed by any human rights tribunal -- even the excellent tribunal that we have in this province.

The Government House Leader indicates that he has faith in the tribunal which administers the Human Rights Act in our province. I think all British Columbians would like to have faith. But faith in what? What are these amendments really doing? Why is the government bringing forward these amendments at this time? What specific consultation has been engaged in that would force the government to bring forward such legislation and want to ram it through the House at this time, without further consultation?

If ever there was an argument in favour of sending a subject matter to a legislative committee of this House, this would be the one. Indeed, this legislation tries to deal with one of the classic legal and philosophical dilemmas of our time: how to balance freedom of speech, which we all enjoy and wish to continue to enjoy, with the need to discourage the propagation of hate literature, which of course we all want to do. On that point, we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the Government House Leader. On those two points, I think all members of this assembly -- and I hope all British Columbians -- would agree.

But how do you do that? How do you achieve that balance? Do you achieve it by sending to the Legislature, with very little notice, a two-page bill that seeks to change some wording in our provincial statute governing human rights? Is that going to solve this classic philosophical and legal dilemma that cannot be easily resolved? I think not. This is not the way to approach it; this is a subject that requires further study.

I personally wish that the amendment -- proposed, I believe, by the member for Richmond-Steveston -- to hoist this bill for six months would have passed. I certainly voted in favour of it. If there was ever an argument in favour of hoisting something for further study, and perhaps referring it to a legislative committee of this House, this is the one. This is not the kind of thing we should be proceeding with in haste. It's an issue of fundamental importance, and it's one on which there is significant jurisprudence.

Much has been made of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantees for free expression and freedom of speech. Of course, clause 1 of the Charter states that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees those rights and freedoms, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Judicial review of Charter cases to date indicates that there may well be room for provincial legislation that might provide some reasonable limitations. There's a very good argument that provincial legislation should address those, but there's also an argument that provincial legislation should not infringe upon those rights unduly.

I would refer members of this House to a statement on this issue made under article 19 of the Charter by the International Centre on Censorship in London, England. They have specifically stated: "The Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, unlike other fundamental human rights, may be infringed upon by provincial legislatures." It goes on to say: "...the protection of freedom of expression" -- should be added to -- "the list of fundamental rights that may not be infringed upon by enactments of provincial legislatures." It suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- in particular, section 33 -- should be amended to ensure that no provincial legislation can infringe upon those rights. So while there may well be a need for provincial legislation -- and as I said, judicial review suggests that there may be a good argument in favour of that -- we have to be very careful to ensure that such legislation doesn't infringe, because the protection of freedom of expression is a very delicate thing.

When we limit freedom of expression, we must be very sensitive to what we're doing. What is in fact a justifiable limit to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of publication? Any such limitation must necessarily be very specific. If it's too broad, it's open to abuse. That must be the central point of objection to this bill: it is too ambiguous; the wording is too vague and too broad.

[ Page 7399 ]

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs made an interesting contribution to this debate earlier today. He quoted some legal cases, some very important legal precedents. In particular, he referred to the Taylor case, a very important decision in the Supreme Court of Canada by Chief Justice Dickson. He's quite right; this was an important case. It was dealing with section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding discriminatory practices: to communicate by phone any matter that is likely discriminatory. The minister quoted at length from the Chief Justice's important decision, but he didn't refer to the dissenting opinions in that very close case in the Supreme Court. Those dissenting justices in the Taylor case claimed that the section had failed the test of proportionality because it was too broad. That's exactly the issue we're debating here today. While this is not a court of law, this is a court; this is the Legislature. I think we have to be careful as legislators to decide whether or not the amendments to the Human Rights Act proposed by the government in this bill are too broad, because I think they need to be very specific.

There's another very important Charter case that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs failed to cite: the Oakes case. I'd like to refer to that for a second to provide some counterbalance on the record to what the minister contributed to this debate, because it deals with the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter -- in particular, the freedoms under section 2: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. In the Oakes case, probably as well known and often cited in the judicial literature as the Taylor case, the decision stated: "The onus of proving that a limitation on any Charter right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation on the preponderance of probabilities based on the following criteria...." Then it goes on to list the criteria.

While I'm not going to read at length from this decision, I think it's important to note the criteria listed in the Oakes case for deciding what would be a justifiable limitation on freedom of expression. This is the first one: "the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important, at least relating to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society, to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom...." The second one is: "the means must be reasonable and demonstrably justified, in proportion to the importance of the objective." It goes on to list further criteria, and I'll read just one of them: "the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question, and rationally connected to that objective...."

Do these amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Act meet those tests? Does this bill meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oakes case? Where in this small and apparently simple bill do we see the objective? The objective is not clearly stated. Neither the Minister of Education in her comments to date, nor any of the other government members who have sought to defend this bill in the House, have really stated very clearly or succinctly what the objective is here. They stated some broad philosophical goals that I think most of us can agree to, but what is the specific objective? What has prompted this legislation? That can't be known. Is the legislation fair and not arbitrary? I don't think it meets that test, because with the vague and broad language used here there is the risk of arbitrariness in this bill.

Let me give you an example of the broad nature of that language. Section 319 of the existing Criminal Code of Canada, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, uses the term "promotes hatred." Clearly it's a criminal offence to promote hatred in our country. Some might go further than that and suggest that we should talk about exposing the public to hatred, and there may be a very good argument for that. But what Bill 33 does is talk about "likely to expose to hatred." What does that mean? How can that ever be defined? It's certainly not defined in this legislation. It's going to be left up to interpretation by a tribunal. I'm not comfortable as a legislator with language that is that broad. Likewise, material that "indicates discrimination," not referring to an act of discrimination but referring to an indication of discrimination or an "intention to discriminate" is defined as an offence under this bill. If it's likely to expose a person.... This language is so broad that it can't be supported. Unless the government is willing to reflect on this further, there is no way that we can support this legislation. It's simply too broad. There are legal precedents indicating the problems with this kind of legislation. Changes to something as fundamental as the Human Rights Act need to be very specific.

This government has brought in a very ill-prepared piece of legislation that I can only assume has made it through because the legislative process that has been established by this government is in total disarray. That's why we're here in June when members of the House would probably prefer to be back in their constituencies. And there's no end in sight, because every day in this House new legislation is tabled. It's an indication of a breakdown.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale knows what I'm talking about. Just to refer to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, he has made a statement about Bill 33, not in this House but it has been quoted in the North Shore News, which is a publication that covers part of the riding that I represent. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who bears some responsibility for the disarray that the legislative program of this government is in, has stated in the North Shore News that he thinks this legislation is a step in the right direction. He thinks it's going to control hate literature. I don't know what it's going to control, but the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who I know is anxious to enter this debate, is going to have to provide some rationale for why he would make such a statement. Is it perhaps because a columnist in this particular publication has been 

[ Page 7400 ]

opposed to him at some time in the past? Does he want to muzzle him?

The real fear here goes well beyond the concerns of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. What is the government trying to do? Is it trying to put the big chill into the news media to prevent them from expressing opinions that might be contrary to those that come out of the privy council of this administration? That is what we have to be concerned about. What are we trying to legislate with Bill 33? Can we actually legislate on an issue of such a fundamental philosophical nature? Can we prevent people from feeling hatred, a repugnant human emotion that has been with us from time immemorial. I don't think we can legislate that out of existence, nor should we seek to. Does a person in B.C. have the right to be wrong? Certainly many people can be wrong on issues. We sometimes define as wrong someone who holds an opinion contrary to our own. But one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society is to preserve an individual's right to hold a contrary opinion. Sometimes ignorance can be its own punishment. We've seen many evidences of that throughout Canadian history. In recent years we've seen the Keegstra case in Alberta and the Zundel case. These are, in my view, instances where individuals have been wrong. They probably have a right to be wrong; ignorance is its own punishment in those cases -- in many cases. They are examples of repugnant views that make individuals such as Mr. Keegstra and Mr. Zundel pitiful creatures, in my view. But do they have a right to hold their beliefs? Of course they do. They must have, in a free and democratic society.

[4:30]

The balance that this government is trying to achieve is not achieved in this legislation. It's not going to prevent Mr. Keegstra or Mr. Zundel from believing their thoughts or even from expressing them, privately or publicly. What we're trying to do, though, is to achieve some kind of balance that this bill will never achieve. A famous statement often attributed to Voltaire is that while I may disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it. That statement really embodies what we in our so-called western civilization believe to be the hallmark of freedom and democracy: the right, enshrined in law and in the constitution, of an individual to express a point of view. The point of view may be contrary to our own, but they have the right to do so. What the government seems to be doing with this legislation is engaging in doublespeak. They talk about human rights, but are they really trying to enshrine human wrongs? It's an Orwellian vision where double-speak seems to be the order of the day.

Earlier in this debate there was some reference to John Stuart Mill, one of the libertarian philosophers, who over a century ago wrote a classic treatise called On Liberty. The member for Nanaimo criticized reference to John Stuart Mill, referring to him, I think, in the context of being a dead white male. I think some dead white males are worth quoting, and John Stuart Mill certainly thought very long and hard about issues. While he is a dead white male, he can be defended on many grounds. One of the great philosophers of our civilization, he thought long and hard about issues relating to liberty. Although he was writing more than a century ago, Mill was fairly progressive for his time, because he also spoke about the rights of women and of democratic citizens. He was very advanced; his views still hold true and ring true today.

At the start of the second chapter of his classic treatise on liberty, Mill said something very important that I'd like to quote from briefly:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and liveliest impression of truth produced by its collision with error."

This was John Stuart Mill talking over a century ago about the need for people to be able to speak their beliefs. Why would we want to try to control such a fundamental act -- the act of a free individual in a free state thinking and believing and holding an opinion?

What are we trying to do with this legislation? Are we going too far? We need to ask that question. Are we going too far with this legislation, which is not well thought out and which is vague and ambiguous? Are we trying to legislate attitudes? Are we trying to legislate thoughts? Are we trying to implement a thought police approach to human rights? Is the government going to establish such a thought police? We can't know for sure where such ill-worded, vague and ambiguous legislation will lead. That's why we should be in no hurry to pass it.

B. Jones: Where do you draw the line?

D. Mitchell: The member from Burnaby who heckles me -- and not from his seat -- wants to know where I would draw the line. As an individual legislator, I would hesitate even to attempt to draw a line through one of the classic philosophical dilemmas of our age. It's impossible. While this member from Burnaby might have certainty, and while he and his colleagues might want to act in unison on such an audacious act, I believe there's the real danger that: "When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all." The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs knows who I'm quoting.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and others who have spoken on this have failed to really explain why this legislation is coming forward. It's impossible to know. We believe in free speech in a democratic society, and we believe that the propagation of hate literature must be discouraged. How we achieve those two ends is one of the questions we're trying to answer. But they certainly will not be achieved by this legislation, which is not well thought out. It has come to this House in a state of first-stage drafting in my opinion, and it should really be sent back to the drawing board.

Who are the great democrats who have brought forward this legislation? Who are they who claim to be democrats in defining and defending the rights of all of us in a free and democratic society? The name of their party is the New Democratic Party. But if this legislation is to be their legacy, they are certainly not 

[ Page 7401 ]

democratic, and they are certainly not new, because they're subscribing to an old and tired vision. They're trying to bring forward an idea that they propose, to compel all citizens in a supposedly free society to think like them. That's what's wrong with this legislation. They're trying to legislate a tired vision, and they're a tired party; they are neither new nor democratic. They will be in power for a short while yet, so we're going to have to endure them.

Bill 33 is not going to survive. They can legislate such ambiguity and put it into law, and they can try to force the human rights tribunal in our province to enforce it. But surely all they're doing with such legislation is inviting a future administration to try to be more specific, to define these rights much more carefully, to take a more careful look at the judicial review process and to think long and hard before they eliminate sections from the Canadian Charter of Rights because of the redundancy argument. We're eliminating section 2 of the Human Rights Act of British Columbia, supposedly -- if we are to believe what the Government House Leader and others have said -- because it's redundant, with what's already either in the Charter or in the civil law process. The redundancy argument has never before been used to take out one simple line in a Human Rights Act that enshrines a fundamental right to freedom of expression. That's no argument for deleting it. They're dealing with that because they're trying to control, they're trying to instil the big chill and they're trying to put a muzzle on freedom of expression.

I've referred to some Canadian precedents, some Canadian judicial review, in my comments. This is an issue that goes well beyond our national borders; it's an issue facing all of us on this planet. A famous case occurred just a couple of years ago in Skokie, Illinois, and many members of this assembly will be familiar with it. The American Nazi Party wanted to march in Skokie, which is a community made up largely of those of the Jewish faith. It's interesting to look at the Skokie case. Those who sought to prohibit the Nazis from marching in Skokie, Illinois, came forward, and they met with the resistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, which was headed up by members of the Jewish faith. Those Jews defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie. That tells you how extreme these fundamental issues of freedom of expression, freedom of communication, freedom to assemble and freedom to communicate are, when you end up with Jews in the United States actually defending the right of Nazis to march. While the Jewish leaders of the ACLU disagreed with their views, which were repugnant to everyone -- and certainly to this member of this assembly -- they defended the right of the Nazis to march.

That goes back to the core issue in Bill 33. Members of the government have not been able to satisfactorily address why they are bringing forward such legislation, and they are not prepared to satisfactorily address why they are so uncomfortable and squeamish with the idea of someone holding views contrary to their own, that they might want to limit those expressions of free speech, free communication and freedom of the media because they might disagree with others.

This is not an easy issue to resolve. It's not going to be dealt with today in debate on this bill in this House. This piece of legislation should not pass; it should never have seen the light of day. The government should be embarrassed to have tabled it in this House without further thought and consultation. I'm surprised that it made it through the process. It shows that the process is not working over there. Bills are making it to the floor of this House without all members seeing them. That's why we have some after-the-fact rationalizations, as we have seen today by some government members who have spoken in this debate -- after the fact, trying to justify why this bill has come forward.

The bill is not well thought out. It's not the act of a democratic party. It's not the act of a party which should be proud to call itself a governing party in our province. I'm embarrassed for them that they have brought it forward. I certainly will not be supporting this legislation, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wish to commend the member who spoke before me, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and many other members of this House who have spoken on this issue.

In all the time I have spent in this House, this is probably the one single issue that I see as being really important. Some days we sit here and go through the motions of looking at trivial pieces of legislation. Sometimes I wonder why we're doing it and if our time couldn't be better spent -- and I know the Speaker certainly feels the same way sometimes. This piece of legislation, as small and thin as it is -- one page -- has immense ramifications for us.

I'm not surprised to see tempers raised in this House. I would be surprised if they weren't. I am not surprised to hear people stand up, like the Minister of Labour did, and give incredibly passionate speeches -- and like the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is a highly respected and honoured member in this House. If they did not, I would be very worried about democracy in British Columbia, because any time a group of elected representatives sets out to make changes to try and limit the rights of people to freedom of expression of any kind, they are treading on very dangerous ground. It is important, critical and essential that that piece of legislation -- however thin and small and insignificant in appearance -- be dragged through the wringer; that it be picked apart sentence by sentence, word by word and letter by letter. If we are not looking at the possible implications of that legislation in its extreme, then we are not doing the job that we were put here to do.

I have heard people from all three parties -- including the independent members -- say things that have offended other people in this House and have offended their sensibilities, because they are pushing the limits of this legislation. They're saying: "What if? What if we put this legislation in? What are the possible implications of it?" By pushing those limits, we're doing exactly what we should be doing. We are being incredibly vigilant at looking at one of the most important things that government can do, and that is 

[ Page 7402 ]

impinge on the rights of individuals in the community. When I see members heckling back and forth and getting angry, when I see faces getting red and people shaking their heads in frustration, I know we are doing our job here, because we are testing this legislation to its ultimate limit, and I know tempers have been short.

People with greater minds than those who sit in this chamber have grappled with these very issues for centuries. Greater minds than may ever wander into this hall at some time in the next two or three hundred years have grappled with this issue. They have been involved in this debate by members bringing forth such quotations as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and others have.

We have to be incredibly careful any time we try and make these types of decisions. In my own small, humble way I intend to do the same thing. I intend to ask those questions, put forth the ideas and deal with the what-ifs, because history has proven time and time again.... All any member of this House has to do is take 30 steps up to the library and look through any number of bookshelves. You will find examples through history where the entrenchment of the rights of individuals, after having been fought for and developed in a society over decades and centuries, has been wiped clean -- not in a matter of decades, years or even in a matter of months, but in a matter of weeks, days and hours. Those rights -- individuals' ability to express, publish, think and say what they believe -- have been wiped out with a snap of fingers. It is critical that we take a hard line on this bill; it is essential that we examine its minute subclauses and phrases.

[4:45]

I must say that I am concerned by some things that I've heard here. We had the member for Vancouver-Hastings speaking yesterday. I read through her speech again because I wanted to be clear that I had it right. We had a member saying: "`The new amendment decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is the paramount consideration. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights which will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred'."

Who determines what's in the public interest? Who do we set up in society to determine what's in the public interest? To some extent, we do that every day. But when it comes to governments -- people like us, who are representatives of the people as a whole -- setting the limits to those rights, we have to be extremely careful. We have to ensure that when we deal with these tough issues -- when we have to find somebody to judge them to determine whether or not someone's right has been infringed upon -- we have a body or a group of people so remotely located and so remotely dependent upon this chamber that we have no recourse to them. We have to ensure that the people who judge those rights are dependent upon this chamber for their positions, because it is the government that steps out and limits those rights. All we have to do is read the act and the amendments that are there now to know that the Council of Human Rights is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the NDP is going to set up thought police, because I know the members who are there. While I disagree with their viewpoints on many issues, and I disagree with the way they approach issues, I'm not about to think that the people in this chamber are going to set out to establish a thought police. It's not them I'm worried about. It's what might come later; it's the next government that may come in. It may even be a government of which I am a part. It may not be, though. It may be another government, ten, 20 or 30 years down the road -- we don't know.

If you asked the people in Germany in 1928 if they thought that in ten years they would be dealing with what they were dealing with, they would have said: "You're crazy. Don't worry about it. That will never happen. We'll never have to deal with that." They did have to deal with it -- not just those people, but virtually the whole world had to deal with it. They had to go through the greatest contortions that this globe has ever seen to rectify a situation that got out of hand in a very short space of time.

It's like holding up a brick wall that's ready to fall over on you. You need a lot of hands to hold it up. But the second we back off, relax and allow that wall to start creeping a little is the second the momentum goes in the opposite direction. It's the second that things start to change, when people start to get carried away and fall back on emotions that are uncivilized and allow people to do those crazy things that they can do to each other.

It is important to ensure that hate literature in this province -- indeed, around the world -- is stamped out. It's important that we tell those people who write that crap and say those things that we don't agree with it, and that we don't think it's right. But you're not going to do that with this piece of paper. It doesn't mean a darned thing. We've had government members stand up time after time in this debate and tell us: "Boy, hon. Speaker, I'll tell you, I read through the legislation in preparing for the debate, and this is good stuff. Boy, you can sure be guaranteed that nobody's going to be able to do nasty things to anybody as long as this legislation is in force." We've had government members say that the legislation we have isn't working; in ten or however many years, nobody has ever been convicted of any substantial offence under it so as to rectify a situation. I don't think that's the fault of this particular legislation, and I don't think the amendment is going to change it.

You can't deal with this issue through legislation. All that legislation does is give people a false sense of security. It makes them think that something is going to protect them. But there is absolutely nothing that we can put in a piece of legislation that is going to protect our fellow citizens, our fellow human beings, from the kinds of beliefs, comments and statements that people put out -- whether by mouth, over the telephone or by dropping a piece of literature on people's doorsteps. The only thing that will stop that wall from coming down on us -- that wall that's always leaning, ready to go -- is every single person's hands pushing on it, holding it up. The minute we relax, the minute we start putting confidence in legislation and amendments like 

[ Page 7403 ]

this, is the minute our hands relax the pressure and that wall starts to fall on us. That's been proven time and time again throughout history. The issue is there in the books; all we have to do is see it.

In the scheme of things, human beings really aren't that bright. We keep making the same mistakes over and over. We fight wars over this issue. I had greatuncles who were killed in the First World War, and I had relatives who were killed in the Second World War. Heaven forbid, I hope that my children don't have to fight another war over this same thing. But it's not going to be through pieces of legislation. The Weimar Republic had the most incredible constitution to deal with this type of thing. It was a piece of paper that gave people all these rights and guarantees, but it didn't mean a darned thing. It didn't mean anything when the people of that country changed their minds. When they took their hands off the wall and put them to other industrious endeavours, the whole thing came down.

We're not just fooling ourselves but also fooling those interest groups out there. We're fooling those people in our community who face this type of discrimination every day. I consider myself lucky because I don't face it directly. That doesn't mean I don't see or read it. It doesn't mean I don't have friends and colleagues who experience it. That type of stuff goes on all the time, and this isn't going to stop it. I've worked in the aviation field, where 98 percent of the pilots are men. Some of those guys are real jerks, because there are some incredibly good women pilots out there who have had to put up with the most amazing garbage that you can imagine. Every single time I've seen it, I've stood up and said: "You're wrong. You have no right to say that to someone else. You have no right to treat someone else like that."

I had a very close relation of mine give me a book that dealt with French people in Canada. I didn't know how to take it. This book was sent to me as if I would read it and say: "Yeah, right on." I looked at this thing and started to read through it. I got about 20 pages into it, highlighting the parts that I was going to pick up the phone and yell at this person about. I couldn't go any further than 21 pages. I couldn't believe that somebody I knew, somebody that close to me, would give me that kind of document and expect me to read and believe it. That's how close it is. I had to do something that was very difficult for me. I had to go to that person and tell them: "You are wrong. This is garbage. You have to educate yourself on what is really going on in this country and the problems that the French-Canadian people in Canada have had." That's the only way we're going to deal with it. Quite frankly, this piece of legislation probably wouldn't have captured that book, because it was on the edge. I really don't believe that this legislation would have been able to do anything with it. But that doesn't mean it's not wrong. That doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilant. It doesn't mean that we don't have to go out and tell people those types of things.

I know that tempers have been raised in the House over the last few days as we've debated this piece of legislation. I know that it has been scrutinized in the press and in the media. In many cases I think an incorrect analysis has been made of the bill and its intent, and it has been stretched. But I don't fear that stretching and examination of the truth and that examination of a bill to see what its possible actions and limitations are as much as I fear what this type of legislation can do. I don't fear that as much as I fear putting in place legislation that gives people a false sense of security and allows them to sit back and think they've actually accomplished something in protecting human rights against hate literature.

What scares me more than anything else is if we send out a false sense that somebody is going to take care of this for us; somebody out there is going to take care of hate literature. The government is going to establish a council and all of this stuff is going to go to the council; there's a process in place, and the government is going to protect us from it. If people believe that, we're in trouble. We know from history that legislation isn't going to do a darned thing. It isn't going to change people's attitudes. They don't even know this stuff is on the books. Ask those people who are out there spreading hate literature around whether they know anything about the Human Rights Act or about this legislation and what it's all about. They probably don't even know it exists. They probably don't even care.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says they're going to know. I don't think they are going to know. They might be hearing about it on television or in the papers, but they're going to continue doing the type of thing they do.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I won't repeat my speech for the Minister of Labour because he wasn't here. He can ask his colleagues or read it in Hansard.

There is only one solution to this type of thing, and that is for every single citizen to stand up when they see it and to stomp on it. When you hear people make statements or tell racist or sexist jokes or whatever, stand up and say: "That is garbage. That is not right. You shouldn't be saying that sort of thing. Can't you see what that does to the people at the other end of it?" That's what it takes. This isn't going to do it. This act isn't going to change anything. It's not going to make any difference.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but something that concerned me particularly was when I heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings state that the amendment is going to move this to a forum where the public interest is the paramount consideration. It is referred to a quasi-judicial body, I guess. That body is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. How do we know that those people are always going to be able to deal with this issue? How do we know that we're not going to get a little different government? How do we know we're not going to have somebody with a slightly different viewpoint on this? Certainly it has happened before. I grew up in Moose Jaw, 

[ Page 7404 ]

Saskatchewan, which everybody likes to joke about because it's got such a strange name. Do you know what one of the great, historic things is that Moose Jaw has on its record? It was the centre of the Ku Klux Klan in western Canada in the 1920s. I come from a community where that's one of the things that it has got to carry around with it forever. I haven't gone into the history that much, but I can just imagine the type of town council they had in the 1920s, the type of mayor they had in the 1920s. I don't have to imagine, I just have to look to history to see what can happen when you have a misguided government that's elected for one reason -- maybe it's an economic reason -- but also carries along with it some baggage that deals with strong feelings on race or gender issues or whatever you may have. It's not that far a stretch to imagine a government being elected with some of those strange views and putting some people on that council who reflect those views.

[5:00]

In the United States they go through an extensive process in choosing their judges for the Supreme Court. It's something in Canada that we do a little more quietly. Ultimately the Prime Minister appoints the person. In the United States they go through an incredibly detailed analysis of the person who they're appointing to that court. They do it because they want to know what that person is about. They want to know what type of rulings that person has made. They want to know where that person is coming from in their ideas. They do that because the founders of their nation, the writers of their constitution, wanted to ensure that the decisions that court made would protect the people from the government. I'm not an historian or a scholar, but I find the American constitution to be a very interesting document. Certainly much more so than in a parliamentary democracy, it realizes the necessary separation between the legislature, executive and judiciary, and it deals with it in an effective manner.

In B.C. we have a system whereby the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints the people who sit on that council. It says in the act -- which I find interesting -- that they stay there at the pleasure of the executive council. So the minute those people on the council make a ruling that maybe some government in the future doesn't like, they can just shove them off to the side and put somebody else in. That's not the way these types of issues should be dealt with.

In Canada we have a Supreme Court that has tried, with what independence it has, to deal with issues like this. We heard the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs quote Justice Dickson from one case where he tried to grapple with that issue. He did a good job. I think he made an interesting ruling. But you can just as easily have somebody else making a different ruling.

We try as much as we can in our country, and with our constitution, to give the judges in this country as much independence as possible. Right now I'm sitting on a parliamentary committee with other members of this chamber where we're grappling with the process for setting the salaries of judges. One of the main issues is that it's really difficult for the Legislature to be setting the salaries of judges. There's that linkup in the public's eye that somehow the judges would do something in order to get a larger salary, or that somehow there's a connection or an accountability back and forth there that could cause problems for our judicial system. That's how sensitive this House is to it. Right now we're sitting there grappling with a system whereby we will no longer be allowed to set the salaries of judges.

Yet the same House and the same people sitting in this chamber are willing to take something as crucial as somebody's right to say what they want -- somebody's freedom of expression -- and put that off to a council that sits at the pleasure of members of the executive council. How do you balance those two? How do you rationalize the incredible time and diligence we're taking to establish the independence of the judiciary while, at the same time, on an important issue like human rights, we're going to send these recommendations to a group appointed by the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We're going to send them to a council to make decisions on human rights, and that group sits at the pleasure of the politicians. Why so much diligence in one case and so much willingness to allow potential interference in the other?

I don't think that the government in this House, the people that I know here, are going to create thought police; I really don't believe that. We disagree on a lot of issues, but I have to take the Minister of Labour at his word. I believe that he believes in freedom of expression as much I do. I don't think he's about to step in and develop a thought police. But I don't know who the people in the next government or the government after that are going to be. That's why I'm concerned. That's why I think it's important that we look at this legislation, debate it in its entirety and look at its every possible ramification. If it means that the government has to make the important decision to step back, have a look at the legislation and replace the part that I feel they have repealed in error -- that part that instructs the B.C. Council of Human Rights to respect a person's freedom of expression.... If they need to step back and put that clause back into this legislation, I will do nothing but congratulate them, because this isn't a partisan issue. Each elected individual in this House has a responsibility to all the people of British Columbia to ensure that this issue is dealt with effectively.

Despite the tenor of the debate at times over the last few days and even today -- despite the hard comments that have been made, despite the strong emotions that we've seen and that I'm sure we're going to see -- I hope that the government won't make a decision based on pride or on a lack of willingness to step back and say: "We made a mistake." If they've made a mistake, if they feel in their hearts that it's important that that instruction to the B.C. Council of Human Rights be included in the legislation and not be removed, I hope they will do the right thing and include it. I hope they will do the right thing in committee stage and bring forth an amendment to put it back in. Hon. Speaker, I know that my colleagues and I will do nothing but applaud and congratulate the government for making that change, which we believe is necessary.

When people look back on the way we've handled this issue, and when those groups that are expecting protection from this legislation finally realize they're 

[ Page 7405 ]

not going to get it, I hope they will say: "Yes, there was a hard debate in the House; yes, they made some tough statements to each other; but they did the right thing." I hope that never again -- not just in the history of British Columbia but in the history of Canada and, indeed, the world -- do we take our hands off that wall because governments passed legislation that we hoped would protect us. As soon as we start to remove our pressure, as soon as we back off one iota, that wall will start to fall on us, and it will wipe out another group of people as it has so many times before.

So I look forward to hearing reasoned debate; I even look forward to hearing heated debate in this House. I hope that people canvass this from one end to the other and examine every letter that is there. I hope in the end that people make the decision not for political reasons, not for ego reasons or for pride. I hope that people make the decision either to pass or amend this bill based on what is right and what they see as their duty not to their party or to their colleagues but to the people of British Columbia.

D. Schreck: Every once and awhile in this chamber a real debate breaks out in which we deal with some historic and longstanding fundamental issues. No one should confuse the issue here as being whether or not there should be freedom of speech. Our party, the government caucus, is fundamentally committed to freedom of speech.

I think all members in this chamber must be committed to freedom of speech, for we use that freedom as our daily means of conveying what we hold so deeply. Our belief in the importance and power of speech is so deep that we recognize that every freedom carries with it responsibilities and consequences. It is irresponsible for anyone to think that a freedom can be exercised immune from the consequences that flow from it. Hence we don't let people yell "Fire!" in crowded theatres, and we have libel and slander laws.

This gets us to the question of what the limitations should be or, more importantly, because we never really limit anyone: what should the consequences be for the irresponsible use of a freedom? No one is saying that government or the state should step into someone's mind and regulate what they think. This legislation doesn't interfere in any way with private communications. What this legislation does say is that when a powerful freedom is exercised, people can sometimes be hurt and there should be some redress for the victims.

I've heard no one stand up and say that they advocate hate literature. Speaker after speaker has said that they would like to abolish hate literature from the face of the earth. The problem then becomes how can and how should it be done. The hon. member who last spoke made the point -- and it was a good point -- that we all have a responsibility when we hear sexist or racist jokes or inappropriate speech to say how much that offends us and that we don't want to be the recipient of that kind of presentation. That by itself doesn't stop those who will promote hate literature.

It's acknowledged by all here that we want to eliminate hate literature and it's acknowledged by virtually all here that there is hate literature. That's the important point. But there's one other important step, and that is that there are victims of hate literature. What I hear from many of the members opposite is that we should ignore the victims of hate literature because there is a higher order of importance, that higher importance being the unrestricted right of someone to create a victim by using that powerful tool of speech. All this legislation does is say that the victim should have recourse. There should be a consequence if the use of that powerful tool results in the creation of victims that have a redressable damage.

What does the opposition say with respect to that? Well, there are two lines of argument that are put up by the members opposite in response to what we should do about victims of hate literature. One is that since you can't eliminate people-hating, hopefully we can promote love of one another and eventually the problem will go away. For thousands of years it hasn't gone away.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: I agree with the member opposite when he calls across floor: "It never will go away." He's right, which is why, when the leader of the Liberal Party spoke yesterday, his quote of Martin Luther King was inaccurate. Martin Luther King agreed that hate will never go away and that through legislation you cannot eliminate hate, but that same quote went on to say: "What you can do with legislation is provide redress for the victims of those who are heartless."

This legislation does not attempt to focus on individual hatemongers and say: "We are going to get you." That is not the purpose of the legislation. The Criminal Code exists for addressing that type of problem. What this legislation says is: "If the hate is never going to go away, and if we don't like the fact that there's hate literature out there and that there are victims of it, let's provide some redress for those victims." The human rights approach to this type of legislation is not punitive; it is an approach that deals with the victims of hate literature.

[5:15]

Sometime before this debate is concluded, I would like to hear members opposite deal with their proposals and alternatives for dealing with victims of hate literature. We have heard members in this chamber speak about their own suffering at the hands of discrimination. My constituency adjoins that of the hon. member opposite for West Vancouver-Capilano, and we both hear representatives of the North Shore Multicultural Society talk about the problem with the promotion of hatred in our community and what we can do to mute or in some way reduce the promotion of that intolerance. There is definitely an established need, and it is incumbent on us to look toward solutions. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Saying that we can't change people's hearts is true, but that does nothing for the victims. It is time to speak to the victims. What are we going to offer to protect them from the hatemongers? Members opposite say: "We may ignore the victims. We may talk about them later. 

[ Page 7406 ]

But even if they are there, there is a higher principle, and that is the principle of freedom of speech, and anything we might do might touch on that divine principle."

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our constitution has been misrepresented throughout the debate of the last several days. The elementary school students who fill our galleries from time to time could explain that the highest law of our land is the constitution, and no provincial Legislature has the power to enact a statute that overrides our constitution and the Charter of Rights. Our hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs explained quite eloquently earlier this afternoon how the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on a constitutional matter of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the same type of human rights legislation that we have before us today. As many of us would expect, that ruling is that the right of freedom of speech is a very high order of right, but there are reasonable limitations to the exercise of that right. We all know those reasonable limitations when it comes to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or to libel or slander. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that a reasonable limitation is the provision that provides redress to victims of hatemongers, those who promote hatred through whatever means -- posters or signs or what have you.

The avenues pursued by the parties opposite, who say that a problem exists but we can ignore the victims or ignore the heartless or ignore the constitutional rulings, are dead ends that fail. We must do something. What does the opposition say? The leader of the Liberal Party, in his speech last night, attacked the motivation of the government and said that this is not legislation to deal with the victims. Actually, he didn't say that. He was mute on the point of the victims. What he did was allege that the legislation is "...targeted at one, two or three people who, I agree, provide insensitive, often hateful material that is ignorant in its basis...." I invite the member opposite to name names. As a member of the government caucus, I can say that we have no such individual in mind. But a fundamental error in dealing with legislation of this nature would be to provide a platform for a hatemonger to stand up and say: "This legislation is written because of me, and just come and get me." That is not the purpose of this legislation. No individual has been specifically considered. If any individual in the community -- a columnist, propagandist or what have you -- is having those thoughts go through their mind, then that individual should look into their soul and question what they are doing. Are they promoting hatred? Do they have something to worry about? Perhaps sober second thought is an unintended good consequence of such legislation. But I emphasize once again that the intended consequence is not to go after individual hatemongers; it's to provide redress for the victims of those hatemongers.

On June 12 of last year I made a private member's statement in this House dealing with the topic of freedom of speech. I understand that there has been some confusion about the topic dealt with roughly a year ago with respect to a columnist in my community and the connection to this bill. There is no connection. The call a year ago was for a community newspaper to exercise editorial discretion. On June 12, 1992, I specifically said that I did not call for the North Shore News columnist to be given a pink slip; I simply called for that paper to exercise the same editorial discretion it would with any letter to the editor. I was joined in my remarks that day by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who responded that the columnist has the right to comment on whatever he wishes, but unqualified comments in a significant North Shore newspaper that reaches every doorstep are an abuse of that right. The newspaper should recognize this. I agreed with that member then, and I agree with that member now. Those issues should not be confused. Responsible editorial judgment was needed then; it is needed now. Whether or not it is exercised does not relate to whether such columns would be accepted by a human rights council as the basis of a complaint. No one should confuse themselves by thinking that any individual is predetermined as a target by this legislation. I have said it several times before, and I'll say it several times again, that the purpose of this legislation is to provide redress to victims; it is not to punish the perpetrators.

Interjection.

D. Schreck: The leader of the Liberal Party is heckling from across the floor, asking: "How would it provide redress?" This is the leader of the Liberal Party who, in debate, ignored the victims and confused the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and said that a right should be unfettered and without consequence. Anyone familiar with the Human Rights Act knows that it can provide redress by issuing a cease-and-desist order. It can provide redress by awarding damages. It cannot imprison and it cannot provide for punitive damages.

The focus of the human rights legislation on the victim is that which arises from the consequences of bigots promoting hate literature. If the members opposite don't understand that, then that is probably why this debate is taking the hours it is. It is probably why the members opposite are confusing the several-hundred-year-old fundamental issue of the limits to freedom of speech -- which is not what is at stake here -- with the issue of the protection of human rights. It is probably why the leader of the Liberal Party misquoted and took out of context the statement of Martin Luther King, recognizing, as Martin Luther King did, that we cannot take hatred out of the hearts of people, but we can deal with the heartless by dealing with the consequences of the actions of the heartless. That is precisely what this legislation does.

I will conclude my remarks by saying there is a well-established need that any of us.... Our communities know what we have said here: there is no room for hate literature. There is agreement on that in his chamber. But hate literature does exist, nevertheless. We do have a real problem. As some of us have acknowledged, people are being hurt by that problem. This legislation cannot and does not attempt to reach out and stifle freedom of speech, target individuals or 

[ Page 7407 ]

stop hatemongering. What it does say is that when that problem persists and there are victims in this province, redress will be available for them.

F. Garden: As I stand to speak in support of this legislation today, I'm in a different frame of mind than I was last night when I was listed to speak on the hoist motion. At that time, I was scheduled to follow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. By the end of his three-quarter-hour dissertation doing his thing in front of the TV cameras during prime time, I was so angry that if I had stood up then, I couldn't have rationally dealt with the subject before us. I heard some quotes from that member, whom I had a great deal of respect for up to that time.... For instance, I know of the innuendo that that member has been subjected to in the press and from his own party members. He has been able to withstand those circumstances, and I was so proud of that individual. But when he started making quotations about this particular legislation and the hoist motion -- and it's already been stated by my colleagues.... His inaccurate quotations about Martin Luther King started to lose me completely.

What he didn't say about the famous Martin Luther King was that, while you can't legislate the human heart, it didn't stop that individual: he kept fighting for legislation which got his fellow citizens out of the back of buses and out of situations where they couldn't enter certain establishments and were discriminated against. He went on and fought that fight for proper legislation to protect the rights of people who were being subjected to hate and racist propaganda. He went on until the propagandists finally silenced him with a bullet.

I was a little upset, I have to say, at the end of last night when I heard the pathetic theatricals of that speaker. I suppose what hit me hardest was when his comments picked on several of the government members, suggesting that we were clones and that we weren't concerned about freedom of expression. That member is so far off base with that statement that it's laughable. He seems to think that his is the only caucus that discusses things rationally and then comes out here and presents the case for the people. As I said, until last night I had a great deal of respect for that individual; he's one of the most articulate individuals in that caucus, even though he's been stigmatized by them. But when he made that statement, my Scotch temper got the better of me, and it was difficult to contain it. I want to say for the record that this was discussed in our caucus, and the concerns that have been raised by the opposition were raised by our members. We discussed it, and we received assurances. After that discussion we are convinced that this bill, in the way it is being presented, does not in any way curb freedom of expression.

I was further saddened today when I sat in this House while the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was quoting from a Supreme Court justice's ruling about whether this was any kind of a breach or not, and that member was shaking his head. He was saying that the Supreme Court justice's opinion required a shake of the head; it was no good. I would suggest that these kinds of actions from the opposition, especially from a person with that kind of ability for research.... He should have known that this legislation has nothing to do with denying freedom of expression.

[5:30]

This is an amazing statistic: there are about 50 organizations in Canada today known to promote white supremacy and hatred against identifiable cultural and racial groups. B.C. prides itself as a province of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. One of the great things about this province is that we've got a multicultural society. We pride ourselves on that, and we try at all levels of government not to discriminate.

I don't see anything wrong with this level of government bringing in legislation that prohibits the public distribution of racial hate literature. I see nothing wrong with it at all. It doesn't stop anybody's freedom of expression. What it does do is meet the needs of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. They said: "Nothing in the amendments limits a person's right to express opinions, even if they promote hatred." What it does do: "The purpose of these amendments is to limit the spread of hate and contempt within the community." These are the people we're trying to help fundamentally with this legislation. They go on to chide us a little bit in their last paragraph and say: "The wording of this amendment is not as strong as the wording contained in the Saskatchewan human rights code." So even with what we're doing, it's still not as strong as legislation that is already in existence in this country.

"The Committee for Racial Justice" -- an umbrella group which consists of community, religious, service and labour organizations -- "welcomes the announcement by the Hon. Anita Hagen to strengthen..." the B.C. Human Rights Act and combat hate groups. They're welcoming this legislation. They went on to say: "...the amendments were long overdue, and will provide opportunity for us to continue to consult and dialogue with our membership and other interested groups and institutions." This same committee, which is commending our government for bringing this amendment forward, concludes in the same release by saying: "The Committee for Racial Justice is fully committed to the freedom of speech and expression."

Finally, quoting from some of these organizations.... This is an umbrella group for over 60 multicultural groups and immigrant-servicing agencies across Canada; it's an affiliate of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C. They say that finally we're getting some protection against hate groups in B.C. The government is demonstrating leadership in tackling one of the most insidious and harmful forms of hate in society, that of hate literature. This legislation is all about the public decimation of hate literature. We're saying that in B.C. it's not acceptable to publicly spread this vile, racist, hate propaganda. We're saying it's not acceptable in our society, and we have the right to do that as legislators. We're not taking away anybody's freedom of expression by putting this kind of legislation forward.

This group is saying: "We believe" -- and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I also believe this -- "that the bill represents a good balance of the freedom of expression and the protection of the rights 

[ Page 7408 ]

of minorities." These are the people who are asking for this legislation, who bear the brunt of the racist and hateful literature that gets sent throughout this province and who suffer daily from the slurs and aspersions cast upon them. If there is anything at all that we can do through legislation to stop that, we should be doing it. That's why I feel that we have a good piece of legislation before us.

I've heard the opposition. I really appreciated their speeches this afternoon, which were thoughtful and honest. I didn't detect any political positions in any of the speeches from the opposition this afternoon -- notwithstanding the one I heard last night. They came right from the heart. They meant what they said, and I believed them. But they kept on saying that you've got to talk to people and change their minds. We've just seen an example of how the press and people talking about one another almost ruined one of their members. So talking is not going to do it; it hasn't done it before. We've got to bring in provisions that will help people in this province stand up and say: "You cannot say or do that, because that's infringing on my rights as an individual." This legislation does it.

I want to close now, because if I keep going much longer I'm going to get a little emotional. I grew up in the time -- and I'm sure a couple of members of the opposition remember this -- of the last great World War. That war was going to eliminate all this discrimination, because we were fighting against a common enemy that used hate propaganda as their weapon, and it resulted in the deaths of about six million people strictly because of racial hatred. It had nothing to do with a fight between two countries; it was because this machine -- in a country that had great laws -- was able to pass out hate propaganda that ultimately resulted in the racially motivated deaths of over six million people. They said it would never happen again. We fought a war for that.

Interjection.

F. Garden: I hear the gentleman from Mars saying they should do away with kilts. I will ignore that.

The point I want to make is that that was a war to end all wars. It wasn't going to happen again. It's raising its ugly head now in Germany. We see Bosnia starting to fall apart on ethnic and racial grounds. They say it will never happen in Canada. There are already 50 organizations using the opportunity to spread their filth and hatred. As legislators, we should be stopping that at every turn we can. We should be saying to our kids in school: "This is what your government stands for."

I am really disappointed that the opposition can't support this legislation, because as individuals I really admire a lot of them; they are fine people. We go across the political floor and have at one another, but in legislation like this we should all be standing up shoulder to shoulder and supporting it. We have proof that it doesn't impinge on freedom of expression, and if they could find their way during the debate to reverse their opinion, I think that would be a great thing.

They said it couldn't happen here, but I saw something on TV the other night that really shook me up. It was based on the increase of white supremacy in the United States and the number of young people who don't remember Martin Luther King. They can't remember what happened from 1939 to l945 -- it's a vague memory. These hate propagandists are getting into the minds of people, and it's starting to show to the south of us and even in Canada. What could we do to slow that down or at least limit it to some degree in B.C.? We can bring in legislation. That's not going to stop it -- as has been said several times, you can't legislate the heart -- but you could bring children up in an atmosphere that says: "The propagation of hate literature is unacceptable in B.C." I stand proud. Even if this is my last session in this House and I have to leave here without getting re-elected -- I hear the cracks, and I understand them, but I hope they will take this in the seriousness of the debate -- I will be proud of the fact that I was in a legislature that brought in this kind of legislation.

I'm going to quote a famous person -- excuse the editorializing:

"The propaganda machine got so caught up in dealing with poisoning people's minds that in Germany they came first for the communists. I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then the hate propaganda got going on the Jews. When they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then the same propaganda machine spewed out hate literature against the trade unionists. When they came for the trade unionists I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then the propaganda machine and the hate literature started on the Catholics. They came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Finally they started on the Protestants, and then they came for me. By that time, no one was left to speak up."

That was Martin Niem�ller. In that famous quote he's giving us a warning: Don't let these insidious hate-mongers have a playground or an avenue for distributing their materials.

I urge all of my colleagues from all parties to forget any little political differences. Forget what the columnists are saying -- their freedom of expression is protected -- and stand up and support this legislation.

K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Jones: A group has been in the buildings today from Fraser Wood Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Approximately 35 grade 7 students, their teacher Dan McCafferty and several parents have just finished a tour of the Legislature. Would the House please join me in welcoming them on their extended tour of Victoria.

[5:45]

A. Cowie: I've been listening to the debate on the amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Act. I must say that I'm not a philosopher or a lawyer; I'm just a simple designer and planner. So my comments will be very simple and very brief.

[ Page 7409 ]

I've listened to both sides, for and against, and I must say there have been many eloquent speeches. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was particularly convincing in favour, and there have been many members against the bill on our side. The excellent comments have taken many perspectives. The member just before me, one of our Scottish members, has taken the debate through Second World War Europe and all over the place, and I respect that. That's the emotion that's coming out, and I certainly respect him for speaking with such emotion.

There has also largely been agreement between the two sides. So what is the critical issue? To my thinking, anyway, it's the elimination of a few words in section 2, which would restrict the rights of free expression in the spoken and written word. That's all the difference, really, that I can see here. We've gone on and on about that, basically. But I agree with those who have come from the side that we must protect the freedom to speak and write on all matters, whether it's hatred or not. I also feel somewhat worried about a quasi-judicial committee set up to judge those complaints people have brought before it. That worries me. It takes it out of the Criminal Code and out of public scrutiny and brings it before a small committee of people. I wonder just how that committee is going to be formed, who's going to be on it and whether that's really the right way of handling it. I'd rather risk the current legislation. It appears to me that this bill has been hastily put together. I hear many people defending it; it seems to be an honour to defend it because it has been put forward.

The key issue here is about the restrictions that are put on; it's not that there's any difference on either side regarding the hate literature. We all want to see that restricted. But how do we really do that? Unfortunately, it gets a little political at this point. I don't intend to go on about the political side, but it tends to be an NDP trend to set up a committee and take a Big Brother approach. They have to make sure that they can't trust the public to really deal with these matters. I can't come to any other conclusion.

I believe that the Charter of Rights, which relies mainly on public pressure, is the best way to deal with hatred. I have to trust my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, who has just come in. Perhaps I spend more time with him and trust him a little more than I trust some people on the other side. But he says that one can only fight hate with truth and fact. I really believe that that's what it comes down to, and we have to allow the maximum amount of freedom of speech and the right for people to write about their feelings.

I can remember one small event some years ago. Out of curiosity, I went to a meeting on immigration. Immigration a few years ago was a highly emotional issue. Doug Collins was the speaker. I didn't like what he had to say, but I listened. Many people left; that's how they showed how they felt about what he had to say. Then there were those who stood up and spoke against what he said, and those who stood up and spoke against those people who had -- I would just simply say -- unfortunate things to say about immigration. I talked with a number of people there who had just recently immigrated. They were not full Canadians at the time, and they were there because they wanted to hear that opinion. They welcomed the fact that those expressions were being put forward so they could speak against them. I think that's the most important thing that we have in this country, and it's something that we have to protect. So as I said, I am not going to speak at great length. I believe there is a need to change the legislation. A the very least this bill should go back and be reconsidered.

J. Tyabji: I spoke this morning at some length about what this means to me. In large measure, I feel that what we are going to end up doing through this bill.... I've just been passed notice with regard to adjournment.

Hon. Speaker, I move that we do adjourn debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the House do recess for five minutes.

The House recessed at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:01 p.m.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 33.

I also wish to advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

J. Tyabji: Earlier today when I rose in the House to speak with regard to the hoist motion on Bill 33, it was with a great sense of the need for us to adequately debate what this bill means with regard to our democracy and the liberties we enjoy within that democracy. I have a lot of respect for the position of the government members on this, but the point they seem to be missing is that we cannot, even at the expense of some great moral good, arbitrarily restrict liberties in the pursuit of that moral good. It is only with an evolution of society that we can get to the stage of the objectives we have set out. I assume that those objectives are that we would be living in a just, fair and compassionate society.

As I did this morning, I want to introduce a number of quotes from other people, because I know that often in this debate we have a tendency not to regard each other's opinions with the respect we accord people from other jurisdictions. I haven't had the opportunity to quote female political thinkers with regard to how we deal with the debate on freedom from versus freedom to and the restriction of liberties in order to protect 

[ Page 7410 ]

people, as opposed to the use of our liberties; and through that use, the debate in the search for truth and, in the debate in the search for truth, the evolution of society.

The first book I'd like to quote from is called The Anatomy of Freedom. It's actually a book on feminist politics, which I don't often take the time to read. I should perhaps spend some more time with these ideas, because as I've said, the more ideas we have, the better the debate in terms of our search for truth. The author is Robin Morgan. When talking about freedom, she says:

"We know what we are told freedom is, and our capacity for hope often has made us trust the tale but not the teller. We are, for example, told that we already possess it. In the developed nations, corporate capitalism congratulates its subjects on their freedom of expression, while robbing them of economic freedom. In the communist world, state capitalism congratulates its subjects on their economic freedom, while denying them the liberty of expression. In the developing nations, global superpowers and local hierarchical systems vie with one another in promising their subjects the perfect liberating balance, an important technological future combined with an indigenous cultural past, all the while exacting from them in the present pledges of fealty to this or that system, economic dependence, a temporary suspension of critical expression and a voluntary self-sacrifice to the cause. All of these freedoms, either promised or already ostensibly delivered, are in fact illusory."

That is the point we've been trying to make with regard to this bill. To try to say that this bill is going to give us freedom from the hatred, ignorance and propaganda that's out there.... It's not true. All we're going to do is drive it underground. As I said earlier today, you will get a festering and the same hatred and ignorance being perpetrated in a way that we can't monitor. For us to try to attempt to legislate people's hearts.... I've read the quote from Martin Luther King, who said: "You cannot legislate people's hearts." I know that what he was talking about was that when we see ignorance and discrimination, we meet it with love and compassion. That was the message of Martin Luther King. We understand that the people who perpetrate that are ignorant, and we understand that it is not necessarily wilful ignorance. Many times they've been brought up with a world view or a perspective that we find unacceptable in our attempts to try to achieve a just and compassionate society.

Let me give you some more quotes from Martin Luther King, since that seems to have struck a chord with the government benches. He said: "Non-violence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence." This bill will be oppressing statements and expressions that are offensive to those of us who are seeking a compassionate society. But in oppressing them, we will not be eliminating them. We will not get any closer to understanding the perspective of the people that I believe we should be assisting to come to a better understanding of what their obligations are in a society where we are trying to extend a hand to each other, with respect and dignity for all the people in society.

The point that I was trying to make earlier is that we cannot approach this with contempt for the people who, from my perspective, need some assistance. We have to approach it starting from the perspective of universal respect and dignity. We extend that to everybody, whether they be from the Christian tradition, the Buddhist tradition, the Islamic tradition or whatever tradition people come from.

If we are brought up believing that all people on the planet should be accorded some measure of respect and some measure of dignity, notwithstanding the kinds of things that come out of their mouths that we might take great exception to or that may cause us great personal grief, or, in fact, the actions that can cause us personal grief.... I know what that can be like, and yet it is a challenge to not meet that with bitterness, because bitterness -- or even legislation -- will foster that kind of feeling and drive it underground and in some bizarre way make some kind of legislative martyrs of the people we're trying to tell that this is not acceptable. That is the wrong approach.

I'll refer back to this feminist literature that says:

"In order for feminism to express its true capacities, it is necessary for feminists to express ours. This, in turn, requires of us that we risk the difficult task of continuing to speak vulnerably and personally about our own lives and the lives of other women, while rejecting tendencies toward victimization, bitterness, self-pity or self-indulgence. To unveil the damage caused by systemized cruelty, stultification, indifference and daily denials of one's humanity is itself a painful and dangerous act. To do so while refusing to become obsessed with the atrocities committed against oneself and one's people is an even more arduous challenge."

That's what we're talking about: to understand it, to see it, to feel it, to experience it and yet rise above it, recognize where it's coming from and why, and deal with it head-on. Name it, put the spotlight on it if you will, but don't legislate it underground, because it won't go away. You won't even be able to have a debate on it if you legislate it out of existence. That's from a feminist writer, and I know that the women on the government benches think that I'm the last person to speak on anything to do with women's rights. It is quite the contrary.

Just because I don't support a quota system doesn't mean I don't understand the fundamentals of equality. I don't believe that you can have equality from this constant perspective of the state intruding into society. Social engineering doesn't work. That's why we fight against it; that's why we fight against the quotas; that's why we fight this legislation. It's not because the intention isn't good. In fact, the objectives are the very same objectives that we are trying to achieve. From my perspective, the difference is that liberalism espouses the kind of methods that will get us there in a participatory way, where we allow that process to percolate up -- to come from the people. If this is democracy it has to come from the people, because if it doesn't come from the people it is a hollow victory.

When the legislation passes, what do we have? We have legislation that may have very little public support, because it will be limiting freedoms. It will be 

[ Page 7411 ]

eroding the very civil liberties that so many people have fought and spilled blood over to try to bring forward. Given their world view, I can understand that the member for Cariboo North and the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale believe they are right, and I will not make a personal attack against those people. I will not say that automatically abrogates their perspective in the House, in the way some of them have tried to impugn some of our members. I will say that I understand this world. It is not mine, because I am a Liberal, and I believe in liberalism.

Let me share with the House some of the definitions....

F. Garden: Did you believe that when you were an NDP member?

J. Tyabji: It wasn't for long, and that's exactly why. It was only for two months, because there are some fundamental principles that I can't turn my back on.

Let me read into the record from a book called The Eternal Struggle by Jean-Charles Harvey.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The Minister of Forests has asked if I will explain liberalism. Let me read a definition of liberalism. Here's a quote with regard to socialism versus liberalism:

"Socialism and fascism lead, by different roads, to the suppression of all democratic liberty." Like all true Liberals I accept socialization but not socialism. What do we mean by one who accepts socialization? He is a man who believes in social progress, in the right that every individual has in liberal, civilized society to work, to learn, to find a chance to live in his own way; not simply to be provided with food, clothing and shelter but to enjoy material and moral well-being. If a free social order should show itself incapable of elevating the masses, that would crush freedom. In the troubled period through which we are passing, it will be very necessary for us to take care that we do not produce such a catastrophe. It is for that reason that we should look for social progress and be active proponents of socialization, rather than stand by and watch the destruction of our liberal institutions."

That's the difference between liberalism and socialism. Socialization is the educational and participatory process of working with people, of getting the people in a democracy on side before legislation is passed. We won't need the legislation, because through the debate and the socialization process we can take issue with what is being said and advanced.

When we look to the debate on liberty and democracy and to the advancement and evolution of the human spirit, what does it mean? What is it going to mean in the future? What are the institutions that we are setting up? How does this bill represent what we are trying to accomplish? Regardless of whether you're a socialist or a Liberal or perhaps Social Credit -- although I'm not quite sure that I've ever heard any philosophical discourse from Social Credit -- if we're going to look at the fundamental philosophies behind it, how do we advance ourselves to the objective if the objective is a just and a compassionate society? Do we do it by imposing laws on people, or do we do it by working with people to bring about these changes?

[6:15]

Many years ago H.G. Wells wrote The Salvaging of Civilization, which came out in 1921, between World War I and World War II. The reason I find it an interesting perspective is that, as I said earlier, the United Nations is today grappling with the issue of how to define human rights. In some of the Asian countries they're trying to argue for a cultural definition of human rights, similar in some ways to this government's assertion that what will be done with this bill will be in the public interest. How is that defined? I believe it was the Minister of Labour who stood up and said that the human rights council will not be a partisan board. Never have we said that it would be something advancing a political agenda per se. But we do know that the world view of the people on the human rights council will no doubt be similar to the world view of the people who appoint the human rights council -- in this case, a socialist government. So if that is the world view that is accepted, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the arbitrary nature of the decisions that will come out with regard to human rights because of this legislation. That's why we need legislation that doesn't allow for arbitrariness on human rights. We can't have it.

F. Garden: The constitution doesn't allow it.

J. Tyabji: I hear the member for Cariboo North saying that the constitution doesn't allow for it. Actually, as the leader of the party will address in some detail, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale have been selectively viewing the Supreme Court ruling.... The leader of the party -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- will be dealing with that in some specifics, so I won't deal with it. I will say that this bill is not consistent with the intentions of the Charter of Rights.

I believe we're attempting to advance the cause of humanity and bring us to a state where we are evolving into a better society. H.G. Wells, in The Salvaging of Civilization which I referred to earlier, was himself grappling with the idea of what to do as we move toward a world order. So on the same day that we're debating this bill in this House and the United Nations is debating the definition of human rights, I would like to read out the thoughts of H.G. Wells in 1921 about how we advance ourselves. It is extremely relevant in terms of what we choose to do in evolving our social order. He said:

"...it must be because we are all creatures of our immediate surroundings, because our minds and energies are chiefly occupied by the affairs of everyday, because we are all chiefly living our own lives and very few of us, except by a kind of unconscious contribution, the life of mankind. In moments of mental activity, in study or in contemplation, we may rise to a sense of the dangers and needs of human destiny. But it is only a few minds and characters of prophetic quality that, without elaborate artificial assistance, seem able to keep hold upon and guide their lives by such relatively gigantic 

[ Page 7412 ]

considerations. The generality of men and women, so far as their natural disposition goes, are scarcely more capable of apprehending and consciously serving the human future than a van full of well-fed rabbits would be of grasping the fact that their van was running smoothly and steadily down an inclined plane into the sea. It is only as the result of considerable educational effort and against considerable resistance that our minds are brought to a broader view.

"As we have examined this problem, it has become clear that the task of bringing about that consolidated world state which is necessary to prevent the decline and decay of mankind is not primarily one for the diplomatists, lawyers and politicians at all; it is an educational one. It is a moral based on an intellectual reconstruction. The task immediately before mankind is to find release from the contentious loyalties and hostilities of the past which make collective worldwide action impossible at the present time, and a worldwide common vision of the history and destinies of the race. On that as a basis, and on that alone, can world control be organized and maintained. The effort demanded from mankind, therefore, is primarily and essentially a bold reconstruction of the outlook of hundreds of millions of minds."

This was in 1921, in grappling with how we advance ourselves as a society. H.G. Wells is very clearly saying that it's not for politicians to decide. We can only receive instructions from society. We can look on as politicians and representatives of the people; we can see the kind of things that are coming forward. Yes, we live in a time where there has been an increase in racial intolerance that is completely unacceptable and incompatible with the kind of society we're trying to build. But we can't legislate against that.

Unfortunately, most of it.... As anyone knows, if you take a graph of economic hardship and put it against a graph of a rise in racial intolerance, you'll find that there's a great similarity. In times of economic hardship, minorities and women often become scapegoats. But we must understand that. We must fight it with an understanding of the people who don't know why they're being driven forward and whose own fears and ignorance of their surroundings is making them vulnerable to hatred and baseness. We must recognize it for what it is: an unfortunate condition of the human mind.

That's something that through the centuries, through the millenia, people have been fighting. Whether it was Christ or Buddha or Gandhi or Martin Luther King, the message was the same in taking issue with the more base elements of human nature. We must not try to fight it by suppressing, by hiding it, by taking any violent action against it. In fact, we must lay ourselves vulnerable to it. We must put ourselves in the path of it; we must be prepared to go to whatever extent it takes.

We saw it; we saw them line up.... We've seen non-violent protests when the moral authority is on their side, when the strength of conviction is on their side. If something is ethically and morally wrong, and if we as a society are going to combat that, we must do it through moral strength, not through legislative clout, because legislation will have virtually no impact. In fact, unfortunately, the precedents that have been set by attempts to legislate against freedom to speak, notwithstanding how vile some of the speeches may be, have been that that person can then cry censorship. It is for the very same reasons that I say we have to take issue with sexism and racism by allowing equality of opportunity, not a quota system. I happen to believe that when we interfere and try through legislation to do social engineering, we open ourselves up for a backlash. We open ourselves up to the charge that in a heavy-handed way we are interfering with the democratic process.

What we have to be able to do is to take the convictions in our hearts and stand ourselves right in front of whatever oppression or hatred is coming forward -- to open ourselves up to it, as I'm sure many members of this House have had to do in the past. You don't hide from it. When you get into a position where you can do something about it, you don't legislate against it and have it hidden from you. You go down and talk to them; you try to educate them.

Actually, I see someone in this gallery who may never have experienced this kind of discrimination.

F. Garden: Have you ever talked to a baseball bat?

J. Tyabji: In fact, I have. I've been on the receiving end of that kind of....

F. Garden: What happened?

J. Tyabji: It hurt.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, that's the point that I'm trying to make: we have to open ourselves up. But I didn't shy away from it; in fact, I didn't stop fighting it when I was exposed to that. I have very much experienced that.

We have to recognize that what is at issue -- notwithstanding the pain that is caused -- is to what extent we are going to attack that kind of thought in an oppressive way. We cannot do it in a heavy-handed way. In fact, it is my own experience that when one opens oneself up to that as one human being to another, that is the most effective way of dealing with that mentality.

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, Members of this Legislative Assembly, I rise tonight to speak in favour of the Human Rights Amendment Act. I'm a member of the Jewish faith, and thus you have to excuse me if I speak to this amendment with a certain degree of passion. Several weeks ago, my family and I visited Jerusalem during Passover. As soon as we got off the plane, we went to Yad Vashem, the memorial for the six million Jews who were destroyed during the Holocaust. Thousand of tourists were there: many gentiles -- because this was during Easter -- Muslims and, of course, Jews. As we got out of our van, we walked along the road and saw trees. They were carob trees, and there were names on those trees. This was the road for the righteous gentiles, the gentiles who saved tens of 

[ Page 7413 ]

thousands of Jews. In the process many of them were also destroyed.

Then we went into the memorial, and we saw the artifacts of the heinous crimes that the Nazis committed: lamp shades made of human skin, soap made of human flesh. On the walls was a chronicle of the 12 years of Nazi terrorism. Then we went into another room -- it was a dark room -- dedicated to the children who perished. There were little lights up in the ceiling -- thousands of little lights twinkling like stars in the sky. A sober voice read out the names of the children, the date of their birth and the date they had died. When we left that memorial, my young family looked at each other, and my young son turned to me and asked: "Why?" I was at a loss to answer. But the answer really is that most of the world, with the exception of those righteous gentiles and a handful of others, stood by, stood in silence, while it was unfolding.

In Canada today more than 50 organizations promote white supremacy and hatred against identifiable cultural racial groups: blacks, the Chinese, native Indians, and immigrants from various countries. There has been a proliferation of hate propaganda, which is now appearing in nearly every riding in this province. One particular organization's publication has a picture of Adolph Hitler with the caption, "White Man Unite and Fight." Their political goal is, and I quote:

"Our political program can be summed up quite simply: our aim is white power, and we intend to achieve it regardless of what it might take to do so. The white race is vastly outnumbered by the hordes of mud people all over the world. We here in Canada face a hostile government, determined to swamp this country with an overwhelming tide of non-whites and to crush any white opposition."

Another organization promotes the publication The Trillion Dollar Lie: The Holocaust. The Trillion Dollar Lie presents hidden historical evidence which "proves" that the Jewish Holocaust assertions regarding Nazi death camps and six million murdered Jews are false. Another organization aims to establish an independent all-white, all-Christian, Aryan-governed nation-state carved out of the northwestern United States and western Canada. All of this is emanating from various ridings throughout this province.

In the particular case that I just cited, their leader set up a dial-a-racist-message telephone service that promoted white supremacy and was abusive towards blacks, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Chinese, Jews and other minorities, and warned that an immigration policy allowing non-whites is tantamount to national suicide. Another organization contends that there is a conspiracy to overthrow the white race through an imposition on Aryan society of persons of black, Indian, Pakistani and Vietnamese origins.

Yet another organization opposes most foreign aid and favours a restricted immigration policy. Several years ago in Vancouver, its leader told an audience that a foreign invasion would be preferable to the city's current influx of Asian immigrants. This group has been lauded by a well-known columnist in North Vancouver as a saviour of Canadian society. Ironically, that well-known journalist has just been awarded the 125th Confederation medal for his contribution to Canadian society.

Last week in the Vancouver Province it was reported that a white supremacist who helps arm ultra-right-wingers has, as his headquarters, a shop in East Vancouver. He sells paramilitary equipment: killing knives, assault rifles and shotguns. He brazenly admitted that he is a white supremacist and supplies weapons to extreme right-wing groups. In an interview, he claims that Jews are conspiring with non-whites to destroy white Christian society.

In our schools hate literature is being distributed. Several years ago in Langley Secondary School they received literature from the Ku Klux Klan, recruiting members. Hate literature has also been distributed in schools in Vancouver and in Surrey.

If you read today's Times-Colonist, you'll see that even in the armed services we have the RCMP and the Defence department investigating connections between military personnel and white supremacists at the Canadian Forces Bases in Esquimalt and Chilliwack.

Another organization published material with regard to the AIDS epidemic which states:

"The most important thing to remember about the whole AIDS cover-up is that it was interracial sex that started the whole damned thing in the first place. The corrupt Jew system, in its mad rush to mongrelize and thereby destroy the white race, does not want this kind of information to become known to the public in general."

Is this what the members of the opposition want to be distributed? This same organization distributed hate literature against the Asian invaders, a reference to the recent significant immigration from Hong Kong.

[6:30]

In Toronto, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver, synagogues are being vandalized with anti-Semitic graffiti, and Jewish cemeteries are being desecrated.

We in British Columbia are fortunate to have a rich multicultural society. Recently I had the opportunity of visiting Taiwan and meeting leaders of the business community. The founder of CENTRA, their export-import agency, stated that British Columbia is the best place in Canada to invest and has the best quality of life. However, if the hatemongers have their way, there would be an ethnic cleansing and we would have a white Aryan society. Members of the opposition, is that what you want? By unfettered distribution of this hate literature, that's what you're going to get. These hatemongers focus not only on vulnerable groups; their ultimate objective is no more and no less than the destruction of an open, democratic and pluralistic society.

We as legislators must respond to the pain that members of the ethnic community are undergoing as a result of these vicious, bigoted attacks. Our ethnic communities cannot be told that tolerance of hate-mongering is a small price a democratic society has to pay for freedom of speech. The former Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, has expressed a fear that the new law could endanger free speech. He feels there is a danger of this new legislation going too far. Perhaps the hon. member has not heard of the Charter of Rights.

[ Page 7414 ]

I repeat the words of the hon. member for Saanich South this afternoon, who has distinguished himself as an outstanding lawyer and distinguished legal academic. He said that the B.C. Human Rights Act, as with any law in Canada, is subject to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter. The hon. member for Saanich South cited the Taylor decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I quote Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was. On page 894 of that decision, which I have read, he says:

"Hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. It undermines the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality."

This government has the courage to enact legislation which will tell the ethnic minorities throughout our province that they are an integral part of British Columbia society and that we stand by members of the Jewish, Indo-Canadian and Asian communities and other minorities when they are attacked. The hate-mongers in our society are a cancer determined to destroy our democratic, pluralistic society. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act, is a way to tell the hatemongers that racism will not be tolerated.

For those members in the opposition who are concerned about the rights of the hatemongers -- at the expense of their victims, as hatemongering is not a victimless crime -- don't worry: these despicable people in our society will have their rights protected by the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech. The Charter is supreme over all provincial legislation.

At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the righteous gentiles who had the courage to stand up and be counted in the annals of history as opposing racism. I appeal to the members of the opposition to show similar courage and go on record to say that enough is enough and racism will not be tolerated. I urge all members of this House give unanimous support to this legislation.

L. Hanson: I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill 33. Every time you hear another member speak, you get a different perception of what the effect of this bill will be. The question that seems to be most often asked by the members who are speaking is: will the bill affect the freedom of speech that we treasure as part of our democratic society to the degree that it would prohibit what we have enjoyed for so long?

I've listened to MLAs on both the opposition and the government benches. I have not heard one who is in opposition to the principle behind Bill 33. There has been dramatic and unanimous support for the principle of stopping discrimination in the form of hate propaganda, literature and publications. The question that everyone asks, particularly on the opposition side is: will Bill 33 have that effect? If the government, with their majority, are dedicated to passing this bill, there's no doubt that it's just a matter of time before it will be passed. I've listened to various members speak very passionately about the need for this type of legislation and about the effect of it. Quite honestly, after listening to all of the speeches, I'm not absolutely certain what the effect will be. I don't think that the opposition to this bill is based on the fact that they oppose it; they oppose what they believe may be the result of this bill if it is finally passed.

I noticed that the speaker just before me said he was a member of the Jewish faith, and I have in front of me a release from the Canadian Jewish Congress that I would like to read:

"Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region, welcome the introduction of Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act, as legislation designed to combat the proliferation of discriminatory publications in British Columbia. Canadian Jewish Congress recognizes that there is a delicate balance between the democratic right to freely express legitimate opinions, no matter how controversial, and the democratic right of each individual to be protected from discrimination. Legislation must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that this delicate balance is maintained. `We welcome the fact that the provincial government, having tabled the new legislation, can now have input and discussion from interested parties so that the legitimate rights of everyone are well protected and served' stated Renee Switzer Bellas, chair of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region."

Hon. Speaker, I think that gives us some insight as to why this bill -- which is so important and which is going to have an effect on everyone in British Columbia, as has been voiced by many speakers -- should be given the scrutiny that I believe the Canadian Jewish Congress was referring to. I'm not proposing a hoist motion, and I didn't speak on the hoist motion. But it seems to me that the issue is of such fundamental importance to our democracy in British Columbia that having tabled the legislation, it would be very prudent for all of us to sit back and take a second look; give it a chance to be canvassed by interested parties, and give society as a whole in British Columbia a chance to provide some opinions to MLAs.

I believe quite honestly that if that opportunity were given to all of us, we might return to this House and unanimously support this bill or some modified version of it, if that was the consensus reached. This government prides itself on its philosophy of consultation on all issues. It prides itself on the fact that the doors are always open, that information is freely exchanged and that legislation and governance through the process of consultation, to reach a consensus, is one of the basic platforms of this government's policy. I think that if an opportunity were given to all interested parties in British Columbia to communicate not only with their MLAs but also with members of government and the executive council about the difficulties they see with this legislation, a piece of legislation would result from that process that I think everyone in this House could support without any reticence.

There have been so many issues raised -- and very passionately, I might add -- by the various members who have debated the bill. I believe that almost 

[ Page 7415 ]

everyone has spoken on it, and I suppose that a few more will be speaking on it. It seems to be a question of whether the bill will accomplish its stated intent. Secondly, does it have a harmful effect on the democratic right of freedom of speech? Quite honestly, after listening to all the members in the debate, I don't think I really know, and I suspect that an awful lot of members in this House don't really know. I've heard rumours to the effect that the bill is not supported by 100 percent of government members.

Those facts would justify stepping aside from this bill -- and I think the government would be praised for doing that -- for some time to let that process mature, and then we could all come back with a really good understanding of exactly what this bill means and what effect it will have on us. We could all support it. I didn't hear anyone speak in opposition to the principle of stopping hate discrimination, literature, speech, publications and that sort of thing.

[6:45]

I'm going to vote against second reading of the bill, not because there is a principle involved that I can't support but because of what might result because of passing this legislation. I think it is too important an issue for us to leave it based on the fact that the government has more members in this House than any of the other parties. That would be wrong for this piece of legislation. Therefore I will be voting against it for that reason.

H. Giesbrecht: We've heard an awful lot of speeches on this issue, and most of the members in this House have wrestled with the issues that confront us here. I wasn't originally going to speak on this issue, but I am compelled to voice my opinion, especially in view of some of the comments that somehow the government side is divided on this issue.

The opposition has made repeated suggestions that Bill 33 represents a threat against freedom of speech. In some bizarre twist they have even suggested that it represents a threat to freedom of thought. The solution they have proposed is to do nothing, at least for six months. And now we're proceeding on second reading. For the government side, we have repeatedly said in our comments that for some time this legislation has been asked for by the various organizations that have dealt with the issue of hate literature, and we are addressing those concerns. We have repeatedly said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression and is supreme, and all other federal and provincial laws are subservient to that. This bill addresses the issue of hate literature within the confines of the Charter. We have also made it very clear that there is enough legal opinion to suggest that the opposition's fears are unwarranted.

I recall a phrase that Dr. Bob McClure, once the moderator of the United Church, used to use. I paraphrase, but it was something like: "I would rather do something wrong than do nothing; at least the mistake would teach me something." I take comfort that the Charter still takes care of the fears. A mistake, however highly unlikely, is certainly covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also take comfort that Bill 33 has the support of other groups that frequently deal with this issue.

I submit that this struggle that's taking place -- or this war that the opposition is waging for freedom of expression -- is false and, to some extent, phony. I think it's politically dishonest. It's a kind of Don Quixote reaction. I could suggest that the opposition is a Don Quixote opposition, tilting at windmills that don't exist. It's the same as if had I suggested they were advocating the right of an individual to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when no fire existed. Both of those are false.

This debate is about limiting an individual's right to use freedom of expression as a way of promoting hatred or contempt toward an individual or a group; not hatred of any kind, but because of race, colour, religion, etc. -- it's listed in the act. It's not about private communications; it's about public communications. There is no attempt to legislate what people think. It's only if they act on their thoughts in a way that subjects others to hatred on the basis of race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, sex, age, physical and mental disabilities, and so on. That's the issue. And I submit that most of British Columbia would agree that that's good.

It's pretty clear from the statements of both opposition parties that they agree with the intent of the bill. We all agree that the intent is noble. We have had hours of debate -- expert opinion and opinions from groups that have some experience on this issue -- that suggest it's time to do something about it. Even the other provinces have similar provisions.

If I might repeat, some of the wording in the bill -- and I've narrowed it down a little bit -- is to prevent the publishing, issuing or displaying of any sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or intention to discriminate, or is likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age -- and that's the list -- of that person or group of persons. You cannot publish material which would expose a person to hate on the basis of those things.

I've even been treated to members of the opposition throwing in such things as: "You can't speak against unions. You can't create hatred among classes of society." It's not in here; the bill is very specific. They're imagining things. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast even suggested that you couldn't promote hatred in a political sense. That's not in here either. I said earlier that it was like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, and to some extent that's correct.

All of us cherish freedom of expression. In this country it's pretty difficult not to. You can say, express or publish whatever you think. But if the consequence of that is hatred toward other people on the basis of race, colour or religion -- I've given you the list -- then that's wrong, and it needs to be stopped. We may not be able to stop it completely -- it was suggested by the member for Okanagan East that it would go underground -- but we can make it difficult for those who abuse their right to freedom of expression so that they don't have the effect that they desire.

[ Page 7416 ]

There is a balance between freedom and accountability, or responsibility. The member for Okanagan East suggested yesterday that if somebody in the media particularly violated or abused their right to freedom of expression, we should all simply boycott them and it would go away; we should do nothing to enhance the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the accountability that goes with that freedom.

Yesterday the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke in favour of the hoist motion. If I have the quote right, he said: "The reason this bill is being delayed is that we are attempting to amend part 1, section 2, which simply removes from the existing law, `subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, any individual may, by speech or in writing, freely express their opinion on a subject'." What the member didn't say is that this bill is subject to the Charter, and the Charter protects the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. All federal-provincial legislation is bound by the Charter. He didn't say that it isn't necessary to repeat Charter provisions, because they override provincial legislation, if they were ever to be in conflict. He doesn't want to tell British Columbians that nothing in this bill would take precedence over the Charter. He doesn't want to, because it's more politically expedient to tilt at windmills that don't exist than to take action against discrimination and hate on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex and so on.

The Human Rights Coalition has stated in one of their releases that without this amendment, the only piece of legislation that can be used to combat hate propaganda is the Civil Rights Protection Act. The question then arises: what's the problem? The problem is that the Civil Rights Protection Act is ineffective. The only means of enforcement is the courts, which are inaccessible to most people because of cost. Most of the victims have already gone through some traumatic experience and don't want to carry it through the courts. It's also interesting that there has never been a charge laid under that act since its enactment in 1981. It is generally recognized as being ineffective in curbing hate activity. The problem is that the status quo isn't working. In fact, B.C. is considered one of the last safe havens for individuals and organizations which promote hatred. One should be ashamed of such a distinction.

The Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of B.C. said, in their news release on the 16th of this month:

"The Manitoba and Saskatchewan Human Rights Acts already prohibit representations that expose people to hatred. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Act prohibits the publication of any representation that 'exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person.' The Manitoba Human Rights Act prohibits the publication of representations that indicate discrimination and those which expose persons to hatred."

This is not something new that we're getting into. There's another line in the last paragraph: "What the provincial government is doing is in line with what other provinces and the federal government have done to deal with hate." The wording in Bill 33 is not as strong as Saskatchewan's. Their legislation says: "...which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity...." Alberta's legislation says: "...indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person." Newfoundland's legislation says the same thing but includes "broadcast media." Should we really do any less than other provinces are doing?

This is from the B.C. Human Rights Coalition news release on Bill 33: "Nothing in the amendments limits a person's right to express opinions, even if they promote hatred. What it does prohibit is the display of these opinions before the public and in the public setting. White supremacists can have their newsletters and hold membership meetings. They can even publicly advertise their meetings as long as their ads do not contain hate messages." The Committee for Racial Justice says in the last paragraph of their news release: "The amendments provide strong support for freedom of speech but balance it with the principle of accountability for the use of that right, and all citizens now have recourse to the courts of law." This is not anything new. If other provinces can do this, we, as a safe haven for hate propagandists, surely can do no less.

[7:00]

Here is the question -- and I want to be brief; I'm taking a page from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who says that you have to be brief and to the point: do you believe that someone should be able to publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, views which indicate discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or are likely to expose persons or groups to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disabilities, sex, sexual orientation or age? Should someone be able to do that? If the answer is no -- and I believe that it is for all members in this chamber, because that's the stated intention, and we all agree on the intent -- then we are morally compelled to vote in favour of this bill. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects our fundamental freedoms while we deal with cases where abuse of that freedom exists. We need to send a message that promoting hatred in B.C. on the basis of those things that are listed in this amendment is unacceptable and that we will do whatever we can to prevent it.

F. Gingell: I believe that Bill 33 is intended to accomplish something that all of us on all sides of this House strongly support and believe in. The differences between us clearly lie in the manner in which we think this can best be accomplished, and whether this bill unreasonably prohibits the free expression by Canadians of the things they believe -- right or wrong. This bill, as other bills from this government, is cloaked in the trappings of righteousness. It's very difficult to debate issues where the fundamental belief is one we all strongly support. I am sure, had this government decided to support the hoist motion, or if it supports some amendments that will be brought in at committee stage, we can all get the legislation we believe we should have.

[ Page 7417 ]

I would like to deal very briefly with a couple of matters that have been brought up during the course of debate. One was the question of definitions, and where the definitions are going to be defined. I understand from listening to members of the government who are trained in the practice of law and are far more experienced in these matters than I that, in the end, these definitions will be determined by the courts as cases are brought in front of the human rights council and move through the appeal process to the courts. It's not up to the courts to make those definitions; it is up to us as legislators to make those decisions. It is clearly not within their mandate or authority. It clearly is within our authority, and it is our responsibility, which we should not shirk, as duly elected representatives of the people. So I am disappointed that the definitions and the practicalities of what will constitute actionable matters under this legislation will be determined by the courts.

Here again in this discussion we're dealing with the difference that erupts between the New Democratic government and ourselves on so many issues: the issue of whether it is the right of the collective to determine and lay down rules that affect the rights and freedoms of individuals, or our belief that individuals do have rights and also responsibilities. The member for Vancouver-Langara put it very succinctly when he said that, in the end, it isn't the courts, the police or the legislation that allows us to wipe from our society these undesirable and distressing happenings under this area of human rights. It is only by education and by living our own lives in a manner that sets the right kind of example, in which there is no discrimination or racism. It is by teaching that to our children and doing all we can to ensure that this is an attitude that society engenders.

One also has to deal with the concern about the appointment of non-judges in the first process of the human rights council. The concern one has is that governments change, and it is the normal practice of governments to change these appointments. I well remember in the estimates debate last year, when B.C. Hydro was under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, that we spent some time discussing the appointment of directors to ICBC. The position that the minister took was that these losses and management concerns in ICBC were the reason he had made the decision to change all the directors of ICBC.

So we turned from ICBC to B.C. Hydro, and I asked him if those were the same reasons that caused him to change all the directors of B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro was not incompetent. They had not incurred a whole series of losses. In fact, they were in the midst of their most profitable year ever. The minister smiled finally, after I asked two or three questions, and he really didn't want to carry on in the discussion. He smiled and said: "Well, on October 18, 1991, there was an election." I accepted that that's what happens. A party wins government, and of course they make appointments to these various boards. They appoint people who are considered to be their friends or fellow travellers -- people who think the same way they do and in whom they have a sense of comfort and trust.

We presently have this government doing that, and we know it. Everybody knows it and accepts it, but who knows what will happen in the future? Who knows who will replace this government? We hope we know the answer to that, but political tides change. As we have seen, there are swings and movements within the political spectrum all the time. We know the history of what has happened in certain European and South American countries. There are sets of circumstances that would make any of us feel uncomfortable when government brings in legislation that is intent upon having a restriction on the rights and freedoms of expression.

The problems have to be dealt with by education, understanding and the kind of climate that creates harmony within our community and society. I believe it is the job of government to ensure that they provide to the citizens the things that they contract to do. Provincial governments have a series of responsibilities -- health, education, welfare, economic development, municipal affairs, land use issues -- that are clearly their mandate. It's the federal government's responsibility to enact criminal laws to protect us and to make sure that we live our lives in safety. It's the provincial government's mandate and responsibility not to pass those laws, but to administer them and to administer justice.

I think that we really need to spend more time focusing on these other issues. We already have clearly enunciated within our federal legislation the rights, freedoms and responsibilities that go with Canadian citizenship. I am concerned that we always feel we need to go too far. I believe the changes to this bill do not add to it. The bill was there, and it was working before. Certainly bringing in groups that can be considered to have been hurt or damaged is good. That clearly looked after an omission that should have been there in the first place. But the lack of definitions, the lack of clarity and the concern that we on this side of the House have for the denigration of the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens are the reasons that we are voting against this bill. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, hon. Speaker.

D. Jarvis: I hadn't intended to get up, and I haven't any prepared speech. But I've been listening to the debate quite interestedly over the evening, and it has come to the point where I feel that I should perhaps say something.

An Hon. Member: Go ahead, make our day.

D. Jarvis: I'm being heckled by the opposition, and that's unfortunate.

In any event, I was brought up by a single woman, and I was taught not to hate or to have any prejudice. I've ostensibly lived that way all my life. Those who know me well know that I do not have any hate or prejudice. However, I am having difficulty discussing properly what is going on here in this environment, because I feel that some of the statements that have been made are almost to the point of reverse hate discrimination.

[ Page 7418 ]

Of everybody in this room, I am probably the only one who happens to know the man whose infamous name keeps being bandied about: Mr. Doug Collins. I have known him for many years. I do not agree with what he has to say; 99 times out of 100 what he says doesn't necessarily go along with my own feelings. However, I believe he has the right to say them. This man is not the ogre or the bad man that people may think he is. In fact, the gentleman from Burnaby was talking about the Nazi tyranny, and I know for a fact that Mr. Collins fought for this country against the Nazi tyranny. He escaped from stalag after stalag. He was awarded medals for his bravery and his stance against tyranny. The gentleman has his own feelings, and he should be allowed to say what he wants to say.

[7:15]

There are no absolutes upon which we can reasonably rely to rescue us from the pain of hate. But when it comes to stopping hate, the best tool we have is our own intelligence -- the ability to see the evidence before us and draw a rational inference from it. In addition to our intelligence, we must develop the courage to allow people to say what they wish to say and not legislate against it. We must have the courage to do things such as that. As has been said before, courage is not a prerequisite of all other virtues. Although we may not know what we should do, we cannot be counted on to actually do anything without at least a bit of courage.

I believe that political democracy is the only system this world has known to date that can generate an acceptable level of dignity and decency. But to legislate against hate will not accomplish what we want. I truly believe that people should have the individual rights and the responsibilities to do and say what they want. To legislate against them, such as with Bill 33, would only support those who hate.

G. Wilson: I rise in debate on Bill 33 on the main motion before us tonight. I must say that my appetite for debate has been somewhat diminished by some of the comments from members opposite. It's difficult, when you listen to members opposite and the intellectual description of their debate, to understand where they're coming from -- in terms of the interpretation of the existing statute and the amendment to it -- and what is intended, what is proposed, what the net result is going to be and whether that is indeed going to advance the cause of a civil society in British Columbia and, hopefully, Canada. It's difficult when you hear from a member such as the member for Nanaimo, who put forward an eloquent argument and went back, through his own research, to the basis of the debate that has raged in free society for so long. I heard a very moving speech from the member for Vancouver-Burrard that involved a personal rendition of issues and consequences that had come about as a result of overt racism and bigotry. It's difficult when you hear that and know that there is an inherent, systemic problem in our society. It's a problem that is born out of ignorance, intolerance and the promotion of hatred among people. It is largely a lack of understanding, and it is particularly difficult when one stands to argue to the contrary of a bill that's well intentioned. I don't have any doubt that this bill is well intentioned. I don't think there is an attempt to do anything other than somehow diminish the distribution of hate literature. And there is a rise; there's no question that we've got the Aryan race out there, the Ku Klux Klan coming up again and the skinheads who are involved. We can go on and on naming the groups that promote hatred and racism.

Racism and hatred are not exclusive to white people. Racism exists all over the world. There are interracial problems that exist. Goodness knows, just look at the Bosnian situation where, as we stand in debate, genocide against the Muslim people still happens. We seem powerless, even in 1993, to do anything at all about it.

When we try to put a reasoned debate forward and say that these are the reasons that we don't think this should proceed in the manner that is being proposed, one would expect that in a House where there is some opportunity for intellectual debate, we would be able to limit that reasoned debate without being suspected of some political gain, of playing to the whims or writings of some editorial columnists or of somehow trying to advance our own particular individual cause. When somebody stands up and states their conviction, members opposite, whether they're of the same political stripe or not, should respect, hear and try to understand what is being said. Let me say that the level of intolerance that we hear sometimes in debate in the House, which was alluded to by the member for Vancouver-Langara so eloquently -- an eloquent speech from a man who has spent his life dealing with issues that surround this; a man who has seen injustice on the street, knows it, and has given his life to serve humanity in a calling that took him into the church and now brings him into politics for no personal gain or reward, but because he seeks to build a better society. Surely to goodness that is what we're all trying to do here: seeking to build a better society. There is no doubt that anger, hurt and frustration fall to us when we see, hear and read commentary that is born from ignorance, that is spawned simply to promote hate and to divide people on the basis of the colour of their skin, the language they speak or the religion they believe in.

That hatred and discrimination -- systemic as it is our society to a lesser degree, but by no means any less hurtful or problematic -- happens in an ageist way when youth are discriminated against, often because their years are not seen as enough to give them the same level of quality and respect that somebody of senior years is given. Or a person is discriminated against because it is deemed that they are less than equal because of their gender.

Over the last number of years, much has been made in Canadian society of the whole question of people's sexual orientation and the extent to which that kind of debate needs to take place. In the debate earlier today, I heard the Minister of Government Services, when responding to one of the members of the third party, call into the debate in a way that would offer commentary. When the member asked, "What about freedoms in society?" the minister said: "Does that include freedom for me to do what I wish with my 

[ Page 7419 ]

body?" The response is yes. On that fundamental issue the response is yes, but people must be free to disagree or disapprove or to not condone it within themselves.

The state must resist the temptation that is so much afoot now to legislate the morality of people and to legislate against hatred. You cannot legislate against ignorance and hatred, notwithstanding the commentary from members opposite. When I said that my appetite has been somewhat dulled, I don't think that in making these comments -- and these may be my final comments until we get into committee stage, which I suspect will be shortly -- I could let it go by.

I witnessed the insensitive commentary made by one member from the government side to the comments by the member for Okanagan East. This member -- who is an Indo-Canadian born in Calcutta and an immigrant into this society -- was commenting about how, despite the kind of discrimination that that member had as a child and felt in school, the state must take exception to the opportunity that is here to legislate or attempt to legislate out that hatred, because it can't happen that way. The commentary was: "Oh yeah? Well, have you ever had to face a baseball bat?" In this case, the answer was yes.

I bring this up because I wonder if that same comment would have been hurled against the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for Vancouver-Kensington or the member for Yale-Lillooet. I doubt it, hon. Speaker. What is different about this speaker? The three members I have just spoken about are Indo-Canadians. Is the difference because this speaker is female? Is it because this member is only 28 years old? Is the difference because this member is Liberal? That insensitive remark speaks to the very heart of the problems we have: a lack of understanding, a lack of compassion and a lack of wisdom when wisdom is required.

I heard the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs quote fairly extensively from the Taylor case. The minister said: "Look, we don't need to amend the act." I think those were the words. I actually took the time to go down and ask Hansard to replay it, so I could make sure I didn't misquote or misunderstand him. He said that we don't have to include the words or bring it back and rewrite what exists now, because the Canada v. Taylor case makes it clear that the lack of those words will not prevent action being taken.

It's interesting to note that we heard from members opposite that there has never been a successful litigation under the Human Rights Act in British Columbia. If you read the judge's ruling in the Canada v. Taylor case, you will see that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has what I would have to say is a very selective and somewhat narrow interpretation of the judge's ruling. The judge was making commentary on section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states: "It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically." We were talking about telephone hatemongering. It's a very specific case.

When we look at the case, which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said was justification for the Liberal opposition to simply fold its tent and say there is no opposition, we have to ask what the details of this were. The details of the case are that under this particular act, the individual, who was part of a group that was putting out anti-Jewish commentary through telephonic communication, was essentially prosecuted, if I can use that term, pursuant to the act. He was given a cease-and-desist order under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which requested that he cease and desist because the practice he was involved in was not acceptable under the act. Not only was he given a cease-and-desist order, but he was also given a $5,000 fine.

What happened in this case that caused the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to say there is justification? Here was a person who was prosecuted under the Canadian Human Rights Act. We now wish to create the same process under the Human Rights Act of British Columbia: the tribunal sits down and hears the case; recognizes that it is unacceptable; makes a judgment that because it's unacceptable, there will be a fine levied. The individual was in fact sentenced to one year in jail as a final consequence.

[7:30]

What happened? He didn't pay. Not only did he not pay, he continued to practise what he wasn't supposed to do. If you look at what happened as a result of that.... I'd like to read from the ruling, because I think it's important that we put this into perspective. It says: "The section makes it a discriminatory practice to communicate telephonically any matter likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt" -- those are two critical words -- "on the basis, inter alia, of race or religion. Pursuant to the act, the cease and desist order was filed in the Federal Court. No proceedings were taken by the appellants to have the order set aside."

That is the critical point that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs didn't tell us. The judge was ruling on an appeal to set aside the initial ruling on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, he was ruling on the basis of the fact that there is a statute of limitation that requires you to file at your first opportunity. This group did not file. As a result of that, this person was not only convicted, but was convicted a second time and sentenced.

When we have a case read into the record, it's unfortunate that it doesn't tell the people exactly what went on, because this statute did work. The Canadian Human Rights Act, which was used in this case, did work. What was heard was an appeal on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you read the ruling and put it into perspective with the situation that we heard earlier in terms of the argument from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, it's quite clear. "Its terms, in particular the phrase `hatred or contempt,' are sufficiently precise and narrow to limit its impact to those expressive activities which are repugnant to parliament's objective." This is where the minister made his key point: "The absence in the act of an interpretive provision" -- how one interprets the act -- "to protect freedom of expression does not create...an overly wide scope." This doesn't mean an interpretative provision on how one interprets the act. It doesn't mean the absence of an exemption that refers to a second 

[ Page 7420 ]

statute. It simply means how we interpret the act that is under appeal on a very narrow section of law: section 13.1, which talks about telephone hatemongering. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is himself a lawyer, should have known that. It was misleading -- a little misleading, anyway, for those of us who haven't had the chance to read this particular ruling.

When you read it in totality, there is no question that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies. Nobody on this side of the House has ever said that it doesn't apply to the question of freedom of speech. But if we have an act under which there can be prosecution, and if we read in that act that there is currently the provision of protection against hate literature that cites, quite specifically, hatred and contempt, why would we remove a section that says that by speech or in writing you may freely express your opinions on a subject, notwithstanding the Civil Rights Protection Act, an act in which it is in fact prohibited and under which there can be action taken? Why would we remove the section that says that? The only reason to remove it is so that we can move many issues to this human rights tribunal. It is a prohibitive kind of section that in my judgment, and in the judgment of those on this side, does curtail civil freedoms on expression.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Yale-Lillooet yelling: "Baloney!" I went back and watched the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs three times to make sure I understood exactly what he said. He rolled quite nicely the eloquent words of the Minister of Human Rights, who introduced this bill, and said that this was what the minister was proposing. He then said that the Canadian Law Society advocates greater degrees of prosecution. He then went on to other community groups, the implication of his statement being that the Canadian Bar Association essentially supports this bill. I can tell you that a quick phone call to the president tells me that they don't. In fact, they have some serious concerns. They have made no judgment on this act; it is currently under review. They suggest the discretion of giving some time for experts in law in B.C. to have a chance to review it, comment on it and send it out to the various chapters that they have in the association.

That's why we wanted to hoist this thing: so that people could have a chance to look at it and see what its legal impact was going to be. I'm not a lawyer. Goodness knows that when you get into constitutional questions and the interpretation of acts, if you put three lawyers in a room you're going to get six opinions. Language can often be quite complicated. It can be interpreted in different ways in different sections, and two sections might impact differently on each other.

It is a complex situation. When we take a look at what was brought forward with respect to this Taylor ruling, we recognize that this is not at all a definitive ruling on the question of this legislation. The only thing it would confirm with respect to the provision of this ruling on this particular case is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, and we know that. All of us know that.

We have a statute in the province of B.C. that has open to it right now a second subsection of section 2 that protects the freedom of expression. When we start to look at what this act does in terms of freedom of expression, it's important for us to put into debate a second reason why we have some concerns. We hear from a number of members opposite -- and I don't think I need to name them all -- that this act as it's written today, unamended by this particular amendment, doesn't do anything for the victims. It doesn't do anything to help the people who are themselves being persecuted. We are told that the amendment will. It will allow them, as the member from Lonsdale said, to seek some kind of recourse. But then the member from Lonsdale said that in seeking that recourse, it isn't going to extinguish anybody's freedom or rights. But you can't, by statute, provide an actionable regulation that doesn't restrict somebody who is subject to that action. So we have to ask ourselves what this is attempting to accomplish. What it's attempting to accomplish, it would seem to me -- and I think it's sensible to argue this way -- is to put into the Human Rights Act an opportunity to refer expeditiously to the human rights council a whole host of matters currently deemed to be freedom of expression that many of us might find absolutely repugnant. There were members opposite saying we shouldn't denigrate or admonish the members of the human rights council, and we're not. Not one Liberal on this side of the House has stood up and said that there is anybody but fine British Columbians on that council. But we have established a quasi-judicial authority in the province of B.C. that has the right and will have the right under this act to effectively "pass sentence" on people whom an individual has deemed has perpetrated some form of hatred by virtue of what they have said or what they have written.

Who is this council? It's under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act, which is the Council of Human Rights. What does it say? How is it established? It's important that British Columbians who want to follow this debate know. It is established in section 10(1): "a council known as the British Columbia Council of Human Rights consisting of those members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure." That's who it is. They may be the finest people you could ever find. It says in subsection (2) of section 10: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate a member of the council as chairman." So the chair is appointed. The council may, in writing, delegate one or more of its members to formally become an administrator in the council.

So far this council has been set up and structured by the executive branch of government. This is a quasi-judicial council that is not like the courts, which would hear under the Civil Rights Protection Act at arm's length from government. The courts are at arm's length from government. They will make a ruling on the basis of the statutes that are current in the province of British Columbia or indeed, if we go to the Supreme Court, under the statutes of Canada. They will make a judgment that will be rendered in an impartial way. Let me say this, save that I should be attacked for attacking 

[ Page 7421 ]

the human rights council: by virtue of the fact that we have a government empowered to appoint a quasi-judicial body to hear cases where they may essentially render a verdict on the basis of what is deemed, in the words of members opposite, to be in the public interest, we are now taking people who are free to say what they wish, restricting that freedom and having them be subject to this tribunal which may make judgment on whether or not what they're saying is in the public interest. That tribunal, quasi-judicial as it is, is appointed by government.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I have a serious problem with doing it that way, because not only is it a diminishment of what is extended in terms of freedom of expression, and not only are we in some way curtailing the freedom to think and speak what we believe, but we are now formally pushing this to a council that is going to hear a complaint. How does this work? It's important that we understand what the statute says, because if this passes.... The members opposite obviously have a majority, and it will. It says:

"(1) A person who alleges that he has been discriminated against contrary to this Act" -- and this act will now allow anything other than private correspondence to be heard; it's up to the council to decide, so virtually anything other than private correspondence can go here -- "may file a complaint with particulars with the council.

"(2) Where the council is satisfied that a person alleged to have been discriminated against contrary to this Act consents to the filing of a complaint and, in the opinion of the council, it is in the interests of that person that the complaint be filed, the council may accept a complaint filed on his behalf by another person."

So the discretion rests with the council as to whether or not the complaint is heard.

"(3) Where a complaint is filed under subsection (2), the person on whose behalf the complaint is filed shall, for the purposes of sections 12 to 16, be considered to be the complainant.

"(4) Subject to section 13, the chairman of the council shall investigate a complaint and endeavour to assist the parties to the complaint to achieve a settlement."

What we're saying here is that this body is going to sit down and hear this complaint, and try to mediate it.

[7:45]

What happens where there is a decision to proceed after investigation? It says: "On completion of an investigation, the chairman shall (a) refer the complaint to the council for a determination as to whether the proceeding should be discontinued...." So this government-appointed council is now going to make the determination as to whether it is to go forward or not. Having made that, it will then "submit a report to the minister, or (d) designate one member of the council to receive, as specified by him, written or oral submissions from the complainant and the person alleged to have contravened this Act...." Then it sets out the procedures -- I'm not going to read all of them -- as to how the tribunal hears those submissions and how it's going to continue. It may then, essentially, make a determination, and it may, in accordance with that determination, provide a ruling.

There is something else in here which has to do with the board of inquiry. I think, if we're going to be looking at it, that that is under the Inquiry Act. It is another means or opportunity for a complaint to be filed. I only raise that because there are those who say -- and those we've heard, members opposite -- that there are no laws on the books. Indeed there are laws on the books. When they suggest that....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear a member opposite saying that I'm misquoting him. I go back to the member for Nelson-Creston -- and I would defy anybody to go through Hansard -- who said: "There are no laws." He said it several times. Maybe there are none that he is aware of, but there are laws.

The point is that if we want to keep the act as it is struck, what kind of litigation can take place through the Civil Rights Protection Act? Let's take a look at this second option, because that is what this opposition is saying needs to be maintained. Give us the provision of a second option to deal with this question outside of a Charter appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us deal with it through the courts in the province of British Columbia. Why not? If we take it under the existing act, we can then move to a prosecution under the Civil Rights Protection Act. It's a prohibited act -- an important point -- which means that "...any conduct or communication by a person that has as its purpose interference with the civil rights of a person or class of persons by promoting...hatred or contempt...." There are those two words again. It is very consistent with the Supreme Court ruling that we have heard just now so eloquently brought forward by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and is consistent with the existing Human Rights Act in British Columbia "...Hatred or contempt of a person or class of persons, or...the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons...on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin." This would go against "any person against whom the prohibited act was directed, or...where the prohibited act was directed against a class of persons, by any member of that class." It goes on to explain what those are in terms of corporations or societies engaged in a prohibited act.

This statute provides the necessary weapon needed in the courts, if there cannot be a social prohibition put in place through the mutual coercion that we need in our society. By removing the "subject to," what we are saying is that we are going to have this human rights board, effectively, appointed by government, become a quasi-judicial authority over complaints against any individual, whether they provide that orally, in written editorial commentary or in any other form.

We have heard an awful lot in this debate about how people in this country have perpetrated racial discrimination. I listened to the member for Vancouver-Burrard and was moved by that. He told some personal stories. It was a very moving and important part of the debate. I'm going to share this with the members -- with your 

[ Page 7422 ]

indulgence, and as designated speaker I hope I don't stray too far. The reason I share this is because of the commentary that came my way last evening. It was suggested that, because of my own ethnic background -- a Canadian, five generations born, white, male and currently a Protestant, although my catechism goes well -- we find that because of my status, my understanding and my concern for this issue somehow can't be equated with those who come from a visible minority. I fully acknowledge that I can never understand what it's like to be from a visible minority in Canada, because I am not one -- or at least one would perceive that I'm not. But I grew up in a country where I was a visible minority, albeit a privileged one. As a white person in a colonial country, I witnessed the abrogation of civil rights in manners that people in this province have never even dreamed of. The perpetration of not just hate literature against people.... I'm talking about the taking of lives; I'm talking about a complete and total disregard for the law, where people were incarcerated without trial. I have seen the emergence of a nation state, where people went from a free tribal community into a new nation state in which the tribal conflict that existed between people was perpetrated black against black. As a minority, a privileged minority, I know what it is like to be excluded and where the white minority provided that exclusion to people on the basis of colour. I found it distasteful then; I find it distasteful now. It has very much coloured the reason I am in politics today.

Let me tell you something else. When I left there to come to North America.... I come back to a commentary that came from the member for Vancouver-Burrard in this very debate, and I think it's an important point for me to raise now. I felt strongly for what he said when he talked about the discrimination that he felt as a boy. When I arrived at La Guardia Airport -- as it was known then -- in New York City, I had the great privilege to buy a Greyhound bus ticket for $99 and 99 days' travel in North America. All over Canada and 33 states I was able to travel on a Greyhound bus. If you don't think you see America from a Greyhound bus, let me tell you that you see a different kind of America than you will if you stay in a five-star hotel.

It was an interesting way to see America and Canada, because in that process I was somebody who was coming out of a white colonial country -- or a black colonial country that was dominated by white elite government authority. In the United States, which was the great melting pot, I found that the great melting pot wasn't melting much at all.

I shall never forget the bus ride I took from Chicago to Little Rock, Arkansas. I was the only white person getting on that bus. That was at the time that civil rights action in the United States was at its height. That was a time when civil rights activists were very much at work. It was the time when the fires of Harlem were burning and the inner cities of the United States were in turmoil because of the civil rights movement that was speaking out against injustices.

On the streets of Little Rock, Arkansas, I managed to witness a young black boy who was in the way of some people moving furniture from a home. The furniture movers found this young black boy, who could not have been more than five or six years old, to be such an irritant that they simply took a large piece of furniture -- I don't know what it was; a drawer, shelf or whatever -- and smacked that boy across the side of the head. They then decided that they would kick this child until the child moved, bleeding and screaming, from their way.

These movers, who were white, had no regard for this infant at all -- none whatsoever. Let me tell you that I was so distressed by what I saw that I went over to provide assistance and some compassion to this young boy. That action alone was enough to have these two rather large, white movers stop their work and come over to me and claim that as I was, in their words, a "nigger-lover," I also should be subjected to that kind of beating.

These things stick in your head. The reason that I raise them today is that when I hear people opposite say that you can't possibly understand what they're talking about, they don't know. That's why I was so deeply offended by the comment made by a member opposite when the member for Okanagan East was speaking. The member herself is from a visible minority -- she's an Indo-Canadian. He made the tasteless, senseless comment, "Have you ever faced a baseball bat?" only to find that, indeed yes, that member had and knows fully what discrimination is all about. It was such a callous and tasteless remark.

What I mean by this is not to point fingers, because we don't need any more of that. What I mean by this is that we must seek to understand the logic by which we go after the legislation that is before us. There is not a Liberal member in this House -- indeed, I would profess to say there is not a member of our party, if they are true Liberals -- who does not believe that the perpetration and distribution of hate literature in our society must end. It cannot go on.

I have no problem, when I see the white supremacists stand up, in standing up and speaking out against them. I have no problem at all, when I see the kind of commentary that sometimes comes out in the public media, which I find distasteful and which I find promotes and distributes hate literature, standing up and freely saying that not only do I disagree with it, but I will also speak out against it and fight against it, because that is the strongest and bravest action we can take.

I was moved today by the words from the member for Vancouver-Langara, who talked about the need to understand from where we are coming -- each of us -- because we bring to this debate different life experiences, backgrounds, understandings and beliefs. We must all be free to state what those beliefs are, and if we passionately believe them to be true -- as wrong as they may appear to the rest of us -- and believe in what they are, we must be free to state what they may be. If they promote hatred and it becomes our subjective analysis that the continued proliferation of that material continues to promote hatred, and if it's directed against any one particular group, there is legislation that allows us to go against it. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs today even cited legislation where it was successfully used, if we have to use a federal Charter. But why not 

[ Page 7423 ]

allow us, in the act as it sits today, the opportunity to protect the freedom of expression and make reference to the Civil Rights Protection Act, where we can essentially move expeditiously to prosecute those who promote hatred?

If the Human Rights Act isn't enough, then the act that needs to be amended is the Civil Rights Protection Act, because in the Civil Rights Protection Act, the Attorney General -- the senior law enforcement officer in the province -- may be free to intervene on an action and, where he intervenes, becomes a party, in that intervention, to the process. What better way to show political direction and leadership than through the courts and the senior law enforcement officer, as opposed to a quasi-judicial board appointed by government that is going to determine what is in the public interest?

As the points have been made on our side over and over again -- and I don't wish to be repetitive on this question -- if this government believes that they have, by whatever virtue they may believe that they're blessed with, some kind of insight into what is best for the people of British Columbia, and direction and leadership are provided to the Human Rights Council as to what that is, they and all British Columbians must understand that when this government changes -- and I don't know when, but it will -- then the new government that comes in will always have the same rights as the government that is going out. By virtue of the fact that this government feels it has the right to be able to determine for the people what is in their best interest, the government that replaces them will equally have that right. We don't know what kind of government will replace this one. Certainly in the Liberal opposition we like to think it will be us. It may not be. How many people have that kind of ability to protect the future? The face of British Columbia society is changing quickly.

I have pointed out in another debate -- and I only bring it preferentially here -- that we are on the verge of the next major global migration. Canada as we know it today -- and the people who make up Canada as we know it today -- is going to change dramatically in the next 15 to 20 years. What we must have in our statutes is not prohibitions that simply try to legislate against hatred, misunderstanding and ignorance. We must have in our statutes an opportunity to educate, share knowledge and understand, as the member for Vancouver-Langara said, each and every one of us, to understand who we are and where we come from and to have solace in that knowledge. We must seek to understand who our neighbours are and where they come from. As we respect ourselves, so we respect our neighbours equally in accordance with the rules that our society deems necessary.

I hope that there has been no misunderstanding of what is taking place in this debate from this side of the House. Nobody seeks political opportunism; nobody seeks to try to aggrandize one's position on this question through this debate. It is a fundamental principle of freedoms in our society: the freedom of thought and the freedom of expression. I suggest that there is going to be a fundamental difference in our approach, by virtue of the philosophical base of the political party in government and the philosophical base of the party in opposition. That philosophical difference was articulately put forward by several members of our caucus. I know that those who read Hansard will see that.

[8:00]

I quote very briefly from Bryan Gould, Socialism and Freedom, and I do this because I think it's important for us to understand that there is a philosophical difference between the Liberal Party and the New Democrats. They talk about it here in terms of the traditions and the basis of the socialist movement that have influenced the development of the movement toward the New Democrats. I don't say this in any derogatory way. I hope that my remarks are taken in the spirit in which they're offered, which is in constructive debate. But it says here: "Statutory anti-discrimination measures, although far from complete" -- and then it puts in parentheses -- "(especially in the case of discrimination against women) are an inescapable obligation for the socialist." I understand that it's a statutory obligation, because I understand the philosophical basis and principles upon which the party opposite is founded and based. It's understandable, hon. Speaker.

But the member for Vancouver-Langara was trying to say that we need to understand each other. But the Liberals believe in the philosophy and traditions of the fundamental right and freedom of the individual, and freedom of thought and expression is a critical part of it, as so eloquently discussed by the member for Okanagan East and shown by the references to Rousseau and to other writers in liberal philosophy and tradition.

In conclusion, let me say that this debate has been an historic one in this province, because what we are talking about is a very fundamental difference in the philosophical direction and approach that government takes in trying to put in place some form of restrictions on freedoms within society. Because that's what every piece of legislation does -- it restricts certain freedoms.

Notwithstanding the commentary from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, having read the ruling that he refers to, I believe it is misleading to assume on the basis of Canada v. Taylor and the ruling that is in here, that that ruling provides in any way a tacit Supreme Court ruling in favour of the jurisdiction of this province taking action, as it is doing today. It clearly does not. It was a very narrow point of law that is covered under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let me say that we also have to recognize that the consequence of this action taken here today, as so clearly expressed by members in this party, in terms of.... It is our firm belief, and a concern of at least those whom I've talked to in the Canadian Bar Association even though their committees have not made a final comment or judgment on it, that this act could curtail freedom of thought and expression in British Columbia. If it doesn't curtail it, it most certainly will make every citizen subject, potentially, on the basis of what they think and say, to rulings by the Human Rights Council, which is appointed by government for an indefinite period of time and serves the pleasure of government.

[ Page 7424 ]

The alternative that we provide in this opposition in a constructive way today is for us not to remove that line, not to remove the reference to the Civil Rights Protection Act. Allow the amendment to proceed. I know the member for Vancouver-Langara in committee stage is going to be very vocal on this question, but allow the act to stand as it does. Even allow subsection (2) to remove the application to private communication, if that's a very important point to the government -- and it may be, because of the constitutional challenge that may be seen in terms of an infringement on the Charter Rights of Canadians. I understand that legal debate. But then why not, in a third subsection, put back the reference? The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has already entrapped me here because it's already there, so it's not a question of putting it back. Do not remove it is a better way of saying it. Do not remove the section that gives the right to freedom of thought and expression and makes reference to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which gives us a chance for criminal prosecution of those people who profess hate and distribute hate literature in the province of British Columbia. I think it is a sensible way to proceed and one that the members on this side of the House would be able to accept.

This has been a long and somewhat exhausting debate for all of us, and some emotion and passion have been shown. As we look back on Hansard, perhaps when we're in retirement, and see what we were like as legislators, I hope the words put forward in this debate today reflect the way in which every speaker on both sides of the House had as the foundation of their speech a dedication to the preservation of a civil society in the province of British Columbia and in our great country of Canada.

I have had the great privilege to be and work in many parts of the world and to travel and see so many countries -- not in five-star hotels. As I alluded to earlier, as we sit here in our civil parliamentary democracy, spending hours passionately debating this lone line about the removal of one's right to think and speak, we must put it into a global perspective, because today in Bosnia we still have genocide at work. In putting our differences into perspective, let us recognize that in Canada we have the most unusual of countries, because we are indeed a mosaic of every cultural group imaginable. In the next 25 years we are going to go through some major social changes, including everything from the development of rights and privileges that will be granted to our aboriginal people to the moving forward of new immigrant people, who will try to amend our institutions and systems of government. Those social changes will require that Canadians be able to freely speak our minds without fear of retribution as long as we do not promote hatred toward others.

My biggest fear as to what we are doing now is that we are setting up a pseudo-judicial kind of authority, which -- taken to its extreme, as one hopes it never is -- would limit our ability to stand and freely speak on these issues. There will be Canadians who will have great and grave concern with respect to the new authorities, traditions and jurisdictions of our aboriginal people, and they must be free to stand and say so without fear of retribution on the basis of racial discrimination. There will be people who will want to talk about the need to reform our institutions to be able to bring a greater degree of emphasis upon new immigrant peoples to this country. There will be challenges to our languages, to our statutes and to the fundamental principles that we all stand by in Canada today. Those challenges will make enormous debate necessary, and we must be free to have that debate rage in this country. If we don't have the debate, if we don't put our energy into a free expression of thought, if we are not free to allow our passions to flow from our mouths, the anger will flow from our hands and from those of us that take greater authority upon themselves. We will have civil disobedience unparalleled in this country, and I sincerely fear it.

This nation is being challenged economically, socially and politically. The fundamental freedom to think and speak what we believe to be true must be protected and maintained. That is the reason why I hope the alternative I have put forward, the alternative that addresses the concerns of government but also addresses the concerns of the Liberal opposition, will be taken to heart and will be put in place. All we need, hon. Speaker, is a simple amendment that will bring this House together in unity like we've never seen it before.

J. Pullinger: The debate on this piece of legislation has indeed been wide ranging. We have heard a lot of opinions and some very different opinions. There have been a number of arguments coming from the opposition on this piece of legislation, but it's worth noting that the primary argument has been about the freedom of an individual to speak their mind, to hold an opinion and to express that opinion -- freedom of expression. Because we're bringing in a short amendment to the Human Rights Act, which deals with public expressions of discrimination or hate messages and with publications or hate literature, and because we are going to add a provision -- that other provinces have -- to protect against that kind of literature and that kind of hateful activity, the members opposite have somehow construed that this is going to interfere with the fundamental freedom of expression, which we have and which we obviously all cherish in this country.

Their specific argument is that because section 2 is being removed from the Human Rights Act, the section which lays out specifically our freedom of expression, its removal will then allow interference with that very valuable freedom. I would like to argue that those who are arguing that this legislation will weaken one's right of freedom of expression or will somehow prevent us from expressing ourselves freely in this province are dead wrong. Those people who are saying that this piece of legislation will change our fundamental right of freedom of expression in the normal sense of that phrase are just wrong, and I'm going to present a few reasons why.

We have in this country a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was brought in in 1982. It was the first time in the history of this country that we had a written 

[ Page 7425 ]

charter of that nature. We have a large body of common law, and we decided to codify it in a written charter. It's not an easy process to change a constitution or a charter, as we have found out recently. There's a good reason for that: the Charter is the superior law, the supreme law, and everything else, all the provincial laws, fall under the Charter. Every piece of legislation that we pass in this province is subject to interpretation under the Charter.

[8:15]

So to argue that because we do not say something in a piece of provincial legislation that is already stated in the Charter, which is a stronger piece of legislation, is simply wrong. For the opposition to argue that somehow we lose that right, if it's not stated here, is incorrect, because it's there in the Charter. The opposition doesn't seem to understand that in this province and every other province that has a provincial statute of this nature, those pieces of legislation were enacted prior to the Charter, because we didn't have that written document and there was a need to lay it out expressly. We don't need to do that anymore, because we have the protection of the Charter. To argue that because a piece of legislation is removed provincially we will lose some freedom of speech is not a good argument -- it doesn't work. We do have the Charter, and it protects us.

My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is a constitutional lawyer, laid out very clearly that the whole issue of freedom of speech in this very context has been dealt with by the courts in 1989. And he talked about the Taylor case. He went through the whole argument, so I won't do it again. But clearly what the Supreme Court of this country said was that to restrict the right of an individual or group to distribute hate literature or to engage in those kinds of hate activities is a reasonable restriction on our freedom of speech. The Supreme Court also said very explicitly -- and it dealt very specifically with the duplicate clause that has been in provincial human rights legislation and is disappearing like ours is -- that that piece of legislation in the provincial Human Rights Act protecting freedom of speech is unnecessary; it's a duplication. There's a stronger law that already provides for that. The court also said that it was not only unnecessary but incongruous with the intention of a piece of human rights legislation to provide direction about how we might mediate between our freedom of speech on the one hand and other people's human rights on the other. So we have a great deal of evidence and some very good arguments why we don't need to duplicate that legislation at the provincial level. For the opposition to suggest that eliminating that duplication will somehow interfere with an individual's freedom of speech is just wrong.

I am interested to listen to the opposition, because almost all their arguments have focused on the individual's freedom of expression. I know that every one of us in this chamber cherishes that freedom and would defend it. But there's something missing from the arguments of the other side, and that's the other side of this debate. Yes, we have a right to freedom of expression, but it's subject to reasonable limitations, because sometimes freedom of expression can cause injury to other people. So we have decided that it's reasonable to place some restrictions on that freedom of speech.

Let's be very clear here that what we're talking about is hate literature. We're not talking about an academic or intellectual debate, or about two people talking to each other and expressing their views. We're talking about hate literature, hate propaganda and those kinds of activities that target a group because of race, religion or other things that identify and single out a group. We're talking about those kinds of activities that have some consequences for other people in our society. That so-called freedom of speech to distribute and promote hateful literature and ideas that target another group is an abuse, I would argue, and it has been certainly deemed to be so by the Supreme Court of this land. It's an infringement on the rights of others.

So we're not talking about private conversations. We're not talking about the right to have and hold opinions or to express those opinions, and we're not talking about academic or public debate. We're talking about orchestrated, organized attempts to persuade the public at large that a group of individuals, by virtue of their skin, race or religion, is inferior. That's what we're talking about: an orchestrated campaign to persuade. Sadly, sometimes those kinds of campaigns work. They certainly have a profound effect on the target of the campaign, and I don't think anybody in this room would argue that we are unable to change opinion. We have an entire advertising industry based on the ability to sway opinion. We have some groups in society that are trying to use that means of persuasion to persuade people that some groups are inferior, and that's unacceptable.

Let's not forget that that has worked. We have collectively held biases in our society throughout history, and most societies around the world have collective mind-sets created and perpetrated and maintained through hate literature or different kinds of assumptions -- sometimes scientific things like phrenology. But we have created a collective mind-set in our society on a number of occasions that has allowed us to justify certain behaviour. When we look at hate propaganda in the context of trying to sway people to an opinion and to create a collective mind-set that will allow us to do certain things, that puts another light on it. That's why the courts of this country have said that it is reasonable to restrict those kinds of activities and freedom of speech in that instance.

Throughout our history in this nation and in North America, we have seen some pretty awful abuses of human rights justified by science, popular opinion and people who said that it was okay to do it. We all know the examples that have been flying around in this chamber for the last few days, like slavery in the southern States. That was justified; black people in the United States were deemed to be inferior, so it was okay to do all of those things to those people. Look at what has happened to women through the history of our country because they have been deemed to be inferior.

I struggle a little when the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition say that we can't accept 

[ Page 7426 ]

those kinds of things, but we can't legislate them. The history of the struggle against oppression in just about every single case that I have ever read about -- certainly in this country -- has been one of trying to fight back. One of the best vehicles to fight back has been legislation. In the case of the women's movement, we fought for legislation to give us the right to vote and to say that we were persons, and for legislation against denying us our rights to own property. Every significant change throughout the history of this country has happened on the basis of legislation.

To the members opposite who say that we must have a public debate, reason together, talk about these issues and that someday right will prevail, I say that is not good enough. We cannot spend time reasoning about whether some of these extremist groups have the right to go out to tar and hurt other groups, whether it starts from a simple erosion of their collective and individual self-esteem or goes to the other extreme, where we see violence against these people. We cannot afford to stand here and say, "Let us reason together," while this goes on in the streets of this province. That's not acceptable. For the opposition to say that this is what we ought to be doing in this instance is wrong.

The opposition has also argued that we have laws and that bringing this in is draconian; it's not needed, therefore we should not be bringing in this legislation and should be using the laws that we have. We do have laws; I agree. There's no question that we have some laws. We have the Civil Rights Protection Act, a pretty old piece of legislation, and we have a Human Rights Act. The Civil Rights Protection Act, which the Leader of the Opposition has quoted extensively, is pre-Charter. There's a good chance that it would be challenged, because it's too broad. It would be challenged in the courts because of the Charter. It's punitive, which means that to use that piece of legislation, you have to prove guilt to a criminal degree. It's very difficult to do that. It's expensive, it uses the courts and it's after the fact. Probably the best argument against using that piece of legislation is that it has never, ever, in this province been able to convict anybody. Ergo, there's a problem with it. To suggest that this piece of legislation, with all of those problems, which has never worked, is okay and we should leave it there just doesn't wash. It's not a good argument. That's not a good piece of legislation; there is a gap in the legislation. Certainly the victims of hate literature and propaganda know it. Those people and the groups that represent them are crying out for a piece of legislation such as the one we are bringing in, because they know they are vulnerable targets of that hate literature. So yes, we do have some legislation, but the legislation that we have doesn't work.

Let's remember the purpose of what we're doing. Again, we're not dealing simply with individual criminal acts that we want to take before the court. We're not dealing with individuals speaking to other individuals, as some have suggested. Some of the Socreds suggested that if we brought in this legislation we wouldn't be able to insult each other. That's a little extreme. Let's remember we're talking about the spread of hate and contempt in our society. We have a multicultural society, and the multicultural nature of it is increasing. We are getting more and more visible minorities here. Because of economic tensions, because of the increase in races here, we are getting these orchestrated campaigns targeting some of these groups. So we're bringing in a piece of legislation that is remedial, not punitive. What that means is that it provides a remedy, and the remedy is easier to access than through the courts. It's a remedy for the victims; the Human Rights Amendment Act is designed for the victims. With this piece of legislation, people or groups targeted will be able to place their cases before the human rights tribunal, and if they are deemed to have a good case, they have the ability to stop that hateful activity. What we want to do is stop those kinds of activities where they're not appropriate; they can stop that activity and there's some compensation to the victims. So I think that it's incredibly important that we have those kinds of remedies available to us that are not available right now.

But what we should remember, too, is that as well as providing a real remedy, perhaps the most important thing we're doing with this legislation is making a very clear statement. Racism and hatred, and propaganda that promotes hatred, racism and other kinds of isms will not be tolerated in this province. The members opposite certainly understand why you cannot stand in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!" That's a restriction on your freedom of speech. Well, if I can't yell "Fire!" and that's a legitimate restriction, surely preventing the targeting of a group and the promotion of hatred and contempt toward them is also a reasonable restriction.

[8:30]

So I think what we're seeing is that fundamental flaw in Liberal ideology. It's a flaw because Liberal ideology looks at the individual -- Liberal individualism -- and forgets the social context, the social dynamic and the social reality out there. Liberal ideology understands that we have a mosaic, but they don't understand that it's a vertical mosaic, to use John Porter's term -- that within that mosaic we are not all equal, that within that mosaic there are some people at the top and others at the bottom. John Porter's study showed very clearly that the people at the top of that mosaic in this country are white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males, and that the people at the bottom of that mosaic -- the bottom of the totem pole, were the words that he used -- are the people that created the totem poles, the native Indians. They are the most disadvantaged group in our society. So we don't have an egalitarian society, people do not have equal opportunity, we do have tensions between the races, and some people are more powerful than others. We have an obligation in our society to ensure that we find that very delicate balance between my freedom to speak my thoughts and your freedom to live without fear, without being degraded and denigrated and without the result of that which is too often violence.

I want to make one last comment. The other argument that we continue to hear from the Liberal side is that this is also not appropriate legislation, because it gives this power to the human rights council, an appointed body. Therefore, as they suggest, the human 

[ Page 7427 ]

rights council is going to be political or biased or not able to do the job. I take great offence at that because the track record of the human rights council in this country and in this province is exemplary. For people to suggest that that body is not able to deal with the issue is ludicrous. So I struggle with that.

Finally, I think it's fair to say that in this whole debate, the arguments about freedom of speech that the Liberals have put forward are not good arguments. There is a lot of evidence to say that their argument just doesn't hold water. We have that protection under the Charter, in common law and in precedent. So freedom of speech is protected in this country. All of us cherish that freedom of speech and expression. But we on this side of this House do not believe that it is okay for the 50-odd groups that are here to be deliberately distributing hate propaganda and promoting hateful ideas in an orchestrated, organized way. We don't believe it's okay for those groups to be targeting young people as recruits, or to distribute hate propaganda or have hate hotlines. Those actions and things I've just described, let us never forget, have consequences. And those consequences are severe for some people in our society.

So we're looking to find that balance between freedom of expression on one hand and human rights on the other hand -- freedom to live in dignity, without fear and without being targeted as inferior. This piece of legislation, by the way, is not as tight as some other provinces' -- notably Saskatchewan's -- and is very similar to Alberta's, so it's not something unusual we are doing here. This piece of legislation, I believe, will move us in the right direction. I agree with the members opposite when they say that you can't legislate attitudes -- absolutely you can't. But that doesn't mean you don't try. We have an obligation to try, an obligation to send a message, and that's what we are doing with this piece of legislation. I for one am very proud to be part of a party and a government that has long stood for human rights and freedom of expression, and is in that context bringing forward this piece of legislation.

W. Hurd: Like many members of the opposition, I've followed this debate with a great deal of interest today. I had intended to leave remarks to others on this side of the House, but was moved by previous speakers to comment on a few aspects of this debate which I think need to be clarified.

The one aspect that has continually concerned me about this government is the unwillingness to recognize the fundamental separation of powers which exists in every democratic society. When we passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Parliament of this land, it was made clear at the time that it was up to the courts -- the Supreme Court of this country -- to determine what constituted a violation of those rights and of someone's civil rights. As we've seen the last decade unfold, the courts have decided and rendered verdict after verdict, which has had the effect of defining those laws which were passed by our parliamentary institutions.

With this bill the government is suggesting that once again the Legislature can determine, through an appeal to the Council of Human Rights, what constitutes hate literature and a violation of the rights of individuals and selected minority groups in our society. I have been struck by the fact that member after member on the government side of the House has risen during this debate and, with ringing passion, denounced hate literature and hatemongering in our society -- as if this concept were universally easy to define.

The Supreme Court of this country has been struggling with this definition for more than ten years, and they have had trouble defining exactly what constitutes hate literature. How can the government assure anyone that the Council of Human Rights, with the limited powers and limited abilities that it has, will be able to accomplish something that the highest court in the land has not been able to accomplish? We have laws on the books to protect minorities in this province. They are there.

You know, I'm struck by the determination of the government to decide that legislators know better than the other separation of powers in the land -- the other institutions of government. This is exactly what we're dealing with. I can think of the situation south of the border when the great debate was on about desecration of the U.S. flag, and the fact that every politician was absolutely sure that this was an act of sedition against the people and the government of the United States of America. We had confidence that if you could bring in a law banning the desecration and burning of the American flag, the courts would uphold it.

The fact is that they did not uphold it, and they made a ruling which it's safe to say was diametrically opposed to the majority of people in that country and to the politicians and legislators in that country. The courts decided in that case that the freedom of individual expression, which was contained in desecration of a flag, outweighed in that case the sensitivities and sensibilities of the legislators who were sure in their own mind that this was a violation and an act of sedition against the people of the United States of America.

We see the same kind of smugness and sureness on the part of the government when it comes to defining hate literature in our society. They are so sure that they are going to allow an appointed board to make that kind of determination, in complete confidence that they will be able to accomplish something that the courts have struggled with for more than a decade. It is that kind of smugness, that kind of assurance, that tends to concern those of us on this side of the House who realize that there's a fine balance between the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and the necessity to protect minorities and groups in our society from hate literature.

As this debate has wound on during the course of the day, I've been struck by the fact that everybody knows what hate literature is -- at least they claim they do -- when some of the best legal minds in our country have had difficulty defining what it is and how it affects people. It's essential, I believe, that any government support this kind of separation of powers, which has 

[ Page 7428 ]

clearly worked in the case of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country.

We didn't pass that Charter of Rights and Freedoms to then hand it to a quasi-judicial body to analyze. We didn't pass our fundamental rights and freedoms, and ask some appointed body that could potentially rule without the benefit of evidentiary introduction to somehow make a ruling. Clearly, there was a role for the courts as a sober second opinion on exactly what was intended when the legislators brought down a piece of legislation.

The government feels certain that by passing this amendment to the Human Rights Act, the human rights council, when it receives a complaint, will have a simple task on its hands of identifying exactly what constitutes hate literature. There's no evidence that they will have any easier a task of doing that than would the Supreme Court, which is now charged with that responsibility.

It's the kind of debate that I believe touches at the fundamental differences between those members of the government and the members of the opposition. Clearly, as we've sat and debated this now for the better portion of two or three days, there's still a steadfast failure on the part of the government to understand the delicate balancing act that we're involved in here and the potential import of these fundamental changes to the Human Rights Act.

I have never suggested that there's any malevolence or anything less than the best of intentions in passing these revisions to the Human Rights Act. There's never been a suggestion by the opposition that there's anything untoward in the way these amendments have been proposed and the way they are being dealt with. But sometimes in our society the best intentions, in the long run, become our worst enemies.

The fact that the government is so sure of what is right is sometimes the thing that turns out in the end to be wrong. It is absolutely vital that we as legislators recognize our limitations, and recognize that there are other bodies in our system of government which are capable of and perhaps better at protecting the rights of individuals and minority groups than legislators. We have to recognize our limitations. I don't believe that the government has acknowledged its limitations with these changes to the Human Rights Act. I don't believe it has acknowledged that it cannot and must not be all things to all people when it comes to the fundamental issue of protecting our basic human rights under the Charter and controlling hate literature in our province and our country. These are issues that the courts can and will deal with. They are issues that must, I believe, give proper consideration to due process. That's the reason why, as much as I respect the honourable intentions of the government in bringing these amendments forward, I cannot support them in principle at this time.

The Speaker: The Minister of Education, in rising, closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: I do indeed, hon. Speaker. I believe this has been a very significant, meaningful and important debate in our Legislature. As the last speaker in this debate, I want to reflect on the many points of view that have been brought forward by members on all sides of this House.

First of all, I want to call on all members of this House to support this legislation under our very significant Human Rights Act in the context that human rights and the preservation of human rights is one of the essential balances that we have with our freedoms of expression, communication, association and speech. About a year ago, I had the honour, as the Minister Responsible for Human Rights, to bring in the first amendments in many years to the Human Rights Act. They included the expansion of the grounds of discrimination to include sexual orientation and family status. They also provided an expansion to allow the human rights council to assist in employment equity programs where government or businesses sought to allow for the full participation of people of all equity groups in our society. I believe 71 of the 74 members stood in support of those amendments -- you weren't able to stand, hon. Speaker, as your role is to help us in our debates. I believe it was a very significant event in the history of human rights. Regardless of what our personal beliefs were, regardless of what our personal values were, as legislators we understood that working to have methods and remedies for discrimination was a part of how we made a better society.

[8:45]

Having started with a request, an importuning for all of us to stand together in support of the principle of this legislation, I want to spend a few moments tonight commenting about those whom we speak for in bringing forth this legislation. As the minister responsible, I know that I speak for the views of all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I want to then comment about why we have brought in this legislation. I want to take a few moments to say what we believe it will do in the context of human rights legislation in each province. Every jurisdiction has a human rights act related to its jurisdictions and in relation to the Human Rights Act. I then want to speak of the balance -- because there has been such a lot of discussion about it -- between freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of communication against the reasonable limits that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms places on those freedoms in a free and democratic society. A piece of legislation is a tool. It's not something that exists in and of itself, but is one of the many tools that we use in the creation of a just, fair and open society. I want to talk about the tool and what outcomes we see.

Let me say a few words about those for whom we speak. There's no doubt in my mind, having heard over the last ten days since this legislation was introduced, that we speak for people who are from the diverse minorities in our province. They are represented in this House, and they have spoken eloquently of their experience, their people and their ancestry. We speak for the equity groups, our aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, people of different sexual orientation, women and, of course, for our wide range of minority 

[ Page 7429 ]

groups -- who, in fact, I don't characterize as minority groups, but as part of the mosaic that is our province.

We speak for them, but we also speak for every citizen in this province who, in the valuing of what has built British Columbia from its earliest days, recognizes that if we do not guard human rights and provide tools to protect them, we are all affected and we are all hurt. Because the hour is late, I don't want to reflect on the many experiences that people have described in their speeches in the House. But I believe that those speeches, descriptions and personal stories tell us about the human condition and why each and every one of us, in the legislating that we do, must put within the balance, within the crucible, ways and means through our human rights legislation to protect people from hurt and hate, which are still among the prevalent evils in our society. The only thing that we can say is: "Thank God that in Canada we value those sufficiently highly that, although they are present, they do not overwhelm and destroy us as we see happening in other jurisdictions." Those other jurisdictions -- whether they be the ones the member for Vancouver-Fraserview spoke about with respect to the history of the Jewish people, whether it be the homeland of my brother-in-law, which was once Yugoslavia, or whether it be Southeast Asia, where we see the genocide that is occurring in the Cambodian nation -- are graphic, horrifying reminders that we must be ever vigilant.

Why did we bring in this legislation? We brought in this legislation because B.C. lags behind every other jurisdiction in Canada with respect to protection in our human rights legislation against hate propaganda and hate literature. This province has not, in the last ten years, nurtured human rights as much as it should have. Some of us remember the wiping out of the human rights code and the human rights commission. That happened only ten years ago. People have spoken about other jurisdictions and governments and what they have done, or what they may do. That's one of the reasons that I believe it is important for each and every one of us to support this legislation. This is not about partisanship or differences. It is about what brings us together as legislators to speak to those who are the people protected by human rights and to the broader society that is enriched when we protect human rights.

We also brought this legislation forward because we have had discussions with the religious and racial minority communities that have said: "We need some tools. The tools that are there don't work." The Civil Rights Protection Act, a well-meaning piece of legislation, has sat unused on the books for 12 or 13 years. What makes us think that all of a sudden it is going to be a useful tool? That is specious; it is not thoughtful, helpful support for the changes that are reflected in this legislation. We know that the Criminal Code is there, and it has been used, but as I said in my opening comments about this amendment, we are not about punitive activity. We are about remedy for people who experience hate. We are about remedy that provides simple, accessible tools -- part of the galaxy of activities, including education and speaking out against hate, that we need to have in place to keep the activity that we presently have from growing and, as all of us have said, to exorcise it from our province and from our land.

We responded to people who are hurt, who are affected by hate activity and hate literature, and we responded to it because we, as New Democrats, believe in and have a commitment to human rights. We see human rights legislation as one of the tools that can assist us in making our province a place of greater fairness, justice and sensitivity for all of the people who work and live here and raise their children here. The Human Rights Act was clearly a choice of those with whom we conferred. They saw it as a vehicle, because it has indeed worked. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made quite a large to-do about the Taylor case, a very significant Supreme Court ruling from then Chief Justice Brian Dickson, and he tried to suggest that this case is somehow not significant in this debate. The Taylor case deals with the federal jurisdiction and the federal human rights code, and it provides us with a very powerful and significant decision that can help to guide us as we look at these issues of hatred, contempt and discrimination.

One of the things that Justice Dickson said was that human rights legislation is a very powerful and useful vehicle for dealing with hate activity. In fact, the case in federal jurisdiction was hate activity using the phones, which is federal law; but the principles and ideas that are part of that judgment apply just as well to the jurisdictions that lie within provincial responsibility. I want to read a couple of comments from that very wise and far-reaching decision.

Judge Dickson said: "It...reminds Canadians of our fundamental commitment to equality of opportunity and the eradication of racial and religious intolerance." He said that not only is the law working for us in Canada, but that also internationally human rights legislation is seen as a powerful weapon. I don't like to use war words, but I will use them because I am quoting the learned justice: such laws are "an important weapon against racial and religious intolerance" and therefore "cannot be viewed as ineffectual."

We have chosen this legislation.... Let me deal with the balance that has been the substance of the debate, although it has been very difficult sometimes to know where people on the other side of the House have truly stood on the fundamental principle of the bill. The question has come up about the balance. There is a balance. In any of the discussion I've had in or outside this House, I have certainly spoken as passionately as I'm speaking now about human rights and about the value of freedom of expression and communication, and the value of vigorous and uninhibited debate on sensitive and difficult issues of the day. The right of people to hold divergent views consisent with those values is among the most important characteristics of this land.

If I can tell but one story, I will tell a story of when I was travelling to the airport with a taxi driver who was originally from India -- he had lived in Canada for a number of years -- and as is often the case when it's a bit of a long trip, we chatted. He asked who I was and I told him. He looked at me truly in amazement. It was a feeling that this could not happen in the country from 

[ Page 7430 ]

which he had come -- people in government who are members of a community and working people sitting in the front seat of a taxi and discussing a wide range of issues, sharing a vigorous discussion. We had a vigorous discussion. We didn't agree on some of the issues we were talking about, but we had the opportunity for that discussion to take place.

[9:00]

I'm not going to repeat for my hon. colleagues tonight the extensive debate that has taken place about that balance, but I want to say two or three things. First of all, the legislation we have drafted is consistent with what is believed to be the best human rights legislation in Canada.

Secondly, the legislation is drafted with the knowledge and advice of constitutional lawyers that the overriding prerogative of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the protection for all our laws. There is no need to have that in this law or other laws. It is in fact the framework for all our laws.

Thirdly, our human rights coucil -- which I believe the oppositiion has subtly questioned, although they have been very diligent to say they do not question it -- is chosen and operates, as many quasi-judicial bodies do, within the framework of law, of the Charter and of jurisprudence. I want to comment very briefly about the choice of these individuals. The current council was chosen through an open competition. We had over 300 applications; a large number of highly qualified, skilled people applied. A broadly representative citizens' committee assisted us in short-listing a group of people who were finally interviewed for the position. These people were appointed on merit. They were appointed on the basis of understanding the task that they had been given, and appointed within the framework of our human rights legislation to carry on the tradition that human rights tribunals across the land have established within the framework of our law.

As a fundamental part of their work, they balance the decision to accept a complaint with the language and intent of the law. They have the knowledge that their decisions, deliberations and rulings are subject to a number of external judicial processes -- a judicial review. Some of their rulings have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I am pleased to note that, although things could go differently, their rulings have been upheld by the Supreme Court -- very significant rulings.

This is a body of highly skilled, highly trained and highly committed citizens who carry out a task on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, subject to the discriminations that we asked them to deal with in the protection of human rights. We need to understand that that responsibility is one that they accept with all of the knowledge, the jurisprudence, the common law and the Charter law that is a part of the framework in which they work. That is, in fact, a part of that balance we are speaking about.

What do we hope will be the outcomes of this legislation? One of the most significant events of the last few days, as I have talked to representatives from AMSSA and from the broad multicultural community, and to representatives of religious groups, is that they welcome the legislation. They recognize that they have a role to play in how it will be used. The very things that we are talking about -- hate literature, and diminishing the existence of and the effect of that literature -- they now see us talking about in the light of this legislation.

Obviously, like many people here, they would prefer that the legislation not have to be used. They recognize that it needs to be used within the context of the balance that we've been talking about. They recognize that there is that balance. Many of them have come from lands where there is not the freedom of expression, the freedom of thought, the freedom of movement that they know in Canada, so they know full well what they have as citizens of this land, and they -- probably more than we -- understand what it is they desire to protect.

We have talked about how this legislation might be used and how it might serve to limit and move to eradicate hate activity. They know, as I know and you know, that this is but one of the tools and one of the activities. I am pleased that many people have spoken about the way in which they will deal with hate activity when they find it. We should celebrate that, and all of us should exercise that responsibility as citizens. But the collectivity is also greater than any of us as individuals. The legislation that provides us with tools is an effective means for us to deal with vilification and hate propaganda.

This legislation has been drafted out of a need. It has been brought forward to bring British Columbia into the family of human rights legislation across Canada. It has been put together in the context of the balance of our broader freedoms -- freedom of expression, the freedom to communicate within reasonable bounds in a free and democratic society. I would note, as the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said, that the balance on freedom of expression is already there. He acknowledged, in the final comments in his speech today, that that balance is there implicitly, as a part of this legislation.

We have ongoing work to do. We need to get on with that work. This legislation provides us, through our excellent council, through the informed and thoughtful debate of this Legislature, with an opportunity to make a statement to the people who elected us and for the people who elected us. It provides us with an opportunity to make a statement that we will not tolerate hate literature or hate activity, and that we will provide basic tools for remediation that will be available and accessible to all, that will be -- if I could use the word -- friendly to all because of the way in which the council works, and that will provide opportunities for education, mediation and, if necessary, a full complaint.

A number of people have talked about the human rights process being something that subjects people to being found guilty by virtue of a complaint having been laid. I really would encourage members of the opposition to find out something about how our council works, to find out something about the way in which they use the processes through which people go when they lay a complaint, to enable people to understand the significance of their activities. I have, in informal ways and in some correspondence that I've seen, come to welcome the sensitivity with which our human rights 

[ Page 7431 ]

council and its officers assist people to understand the significance of their acts and, at times, to learn from them without having to go through the full process of a complaint.

This legislation, then, provides us with a way in which we can broaden our ability to deal with that most hateful part of our society where people feel that they can, unencumbered, vilify, denigrate, hurt or demean people because of their colour, their religion, their sexual orientation, their ancestry, their nationality or their ethnicity. This provides us with another part of our human rights legislation fitting in with those broad classifications of discrimination.

Justice Dickson said about this process:

"The process of hearing a complaint...and, if the complaint is substantiated, issuing a cease-and-desist order reminds Canadians of our fundamental commitment to equality of opportunity and the eradication of racial and religious intolerance. In addition, although criminal law" -- which many here promoted as an avenue for dealing with this matter -- "is not devoid of impact upon the rehabilitation of offenders, the conciliatory nature of the human rights procedure and the absence of criminal sanctions makes" -- it -- "especially well-suited to encourage reform of the communicator of hate propaganda."

Hon. members, everything we do in society is a balance. There is no absolute freedom -- and we have talked about that here. We believe that the balance is in this legislation. We believe that it is statutorily and constitutionally sound. We believe it meets needs that the community has said very strongly it wants to have addressed. We believe it is a tool, not only for remedy and for action that people can take, but for conciliation, understanding and education; not in and of itself, not in any total way, but as a part of that broader picture and as a body that has among its membership a goodly representation of people who visibly are members of minority groups and who know what other backgrounds we bring that have that knowledge of intolerance and hatred -- or it comes out of the personal experiences people have talked about so graphically here.

Surely, as a Legislature -- as people elected to represent everyone in this land, as people committed to justice, to harmonious relationships and to the eradication of intolerance through all the means at our disposal -- we can stand united in support of the principle of this legislation. Surely we can recognize that it finally brings British Columbia into the family of Canada in having such legislation in place, knowing that we have the jurisprudence and practice of our own human rights council, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the broader rubric of legislation and action on it. Knowing we have those tools where there has been experience, knowing that we have the Civil Rights Protection Act -- unused -- and the Criminal Code -- a punitive and inaccessible means of dealing with these issues -- surely we can unite and support this very useful tool in helping us to do what we have all said we want to do: deal with the issues of discrimination and hatred, deal with activities that demean our fellow citizens, and as my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington said, allow all of our citizens to have one more means to support them in walking with dignity in this province of ours as workers, citizens, family members and people -- having come here from wherever -- who value the principles of justice, freedom, tolerance and harmony.

[9:15]

I invite you all at this time, as we move to complete the principle of second reading, to join in supporting this legislation.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 33, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, 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. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 43.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's my pleasure to put forward Bill 43 for second reading this evening. This bill contains three additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which were requested by the respective local governments that are identified in the bill. There are provisions in this bill related to the regulation of land use and zoning affecting all regional districts and the Islands Trust. These technical amendments respond to recent legal interpretations of three sections relating to official community plans and zoning bylaws.

In the case of the official community plans and zoning bylaws specifically, this legislation clarifies and validates the authority of regional districts and the Islands Trust to delegate responsibility for conducting public hearings to one or more board members. Official settlement plans are the predecessors of official community plans. Many regional districts have adopted bylaws in accordance with the older form of planning 

[ Page 7432 ]

document. This legislation validates zoning and subdivision servicing bylaws that are consistent with the official settlement plans. In all cases, these planning amendments preserve the authority of regional districts and the Islands Trust to regulate local land use.

Another provision in this legislation will help in the development of a vital economic plan for the Trail area, developed by the job protection commissioner. The legislation will help safeguard jobs at the Cominco smelter by providing authority to the city of Trail and to the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary to become partners for the next decade in the economic plan to make Cominco viable. The Job Protection Act now provides authority for local governments and other public bodies to be partners in an economic recovery plan, but only for a period of five years. Both levels of local government have already agreed to provide tax relief to Cominco. This legislation also empowers the regional district to prepare and implement a variable tax rate plan to carry out the conditions of the Cominco economic plan, and validates the district's 1993 variable tax rate plan. To keep the Trail operation viable, Cominco must make a major capital investment. The company requires the ten-year period of tax reductions to make the investment economically sound. That is what this legislation will help to achieve.

The legislation is also very important to the people of the district of Vanderhoof and to the economic future of that northern community. The legislation will enable the district to enter into an agreement with Transport Canada, transferring ownership of the local airport to the district. Airports, as we all know, are vital links for British Columbia communities, especially those in the north of this province. They are the centres for the movement of people and freight, without which communities cannot grow and prosper. They work best when they are controlled by local people in the interests of local people and their development needs. While the district of Vanderhoof already operates the airport, ownership currently rests with Transport Canada. In effect, this legislation is a vote of confidence in the community's ability to deliver effective permanent management and control.

I'm happy to move that Bill 43 be read for a second time now.

A. Cowie: The official opposition considers this primarily a technical bill and will support it, but wishes to express a couple of concerns. I have had a number of calls from regional district areas where presently it's common practice for regional directors to be appointed to deal with a local issue. For any of us who have had experience in regional districts or even in municipalities, it's quite common to have trade-offs. One regional district director will say: "Look, you support me and I'll support you." That's exactly what happens, especially in these large regional districts like the Cariboo or further north. I had a call today from a gentleman named John McKee, who probably is typical. He's worried that the local director in his area has made the decision on a particular rezoning, and he can't seem to get the interest of the overall board. So one of my concerns is that rather than just have one member appointed, perhaps the bill should have allowed for two if not three members. I think that would ensure that there wouldn't be one particular director. It's not going to take place often, but it could. One director could become a little dictator, if I could put it that way, for a particular area. Believe me, that does happen. The official opposition would like to see some assurance that that wouldn't happen, and I would suggest that maybe a minimum of three would be a way or providing that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No dictators.

A. Cowie: No dictators, right.

[9:30]

Secondly, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the Trail situation. Although we will probably support that when we get into third reading and look at it in detail, we have some concern that this could become a precedent. I know that it is specially for Trail, and we've gone through that debate, but I do want the minister to know that some members of the official opposition are concerned and will probably be speaking to that issue. We, as representatives, have talked with the mayor of Trail and with people up there, and we realize that it's really a request from them and the company. One other option that might have been considered rather than deferral of taxes is an amalgamation of the whole area. I believe there are seven municipalities with about 17,000 people. That's half the people in my riding, yet there are seven municipalities. It doesn't really make a lot of sense. I feel that amalgamation should have been considered as a way of dealing with this, since some people live in other municipalities and work in Trail. So those are the two concerns that the official opposition has, and we will be speaking to them in committee stage.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, the principle of this bill is certainly something we support. I'm interested to see the section that deals with the community I'm from and the initiative I started six years ago. I want to point out, however, that it wasn't held up by the provincial government; it was held up for many years by the federal government. However, we've gotten to that point.

I have a couple of very brief observations. Section 1 is a bit of a concern, given that the title is Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, which seems to suggest that there's something out there which this legislation is being designed to validate. But it is really a change in legislation that allows all regional districts and the Islands Trust to come under this piece of legislation at a later time. It will deserve considerable discussion, because the issues raised by the official opposition are real. I have personally seen instances where a technicality -- a "t" not crossed or an "i" not dotted -- has caused the court challenge to a particular zoning bylaw. Obviously it was not in the best interests of that regional district or jurisdiction. We have to be careful that we do not permit huge errors to go unchallenged, and we want to be doggone sure that the legislation doesn't permit that.

[ Page 7433 ]

As well, I am a little concerned about section 2, with respect to that initiative. I recognize the economics of that area and I certainly recognize the need to create this kind of situation. But there are many industries in the province, thanks to this government, that are going to be facing similar circumstances. Now that the precedent is being set, we may find more such companies expecting the same kind of consideration. Not that I don't believe that they should receive it, but I wonder about the precedent. We will go through a detailed examination of these to be sure that the interests of all British Columbians are being looked after. I look forward to the committee stage to do that.

D. Symons: I wholly concur with the comments of the previous two speakers. I am particularly appreciative of the previous speaker, who mentioned that because of the actions of this current government, we may be facing more of these situations. What I notice in particular -- it is the second section that I am concerned about, with the Cominco-Trail tax revisions -- is the fact that the government seems to be allowing a nice little agreement between the city of Trail and the major employer in that area. The taxes will be reduced somewhat on that major employer so that they can make some improvements and become more viable. But this really turns that tax burden back on the homeowners in the area. I would be most pleased to see that the government, in their wisdom and fairness, was also willing to say that they are collecting the corporate capital tax from Cominco, which is a rather large business in British Columbia. Since they are expecting the city to pick up some of the cost of keeping Cominco viable there, I think that the government would also like to get into the act and support the city and the company by bringing forth an act that is parallel and complementary to this, where they would take the corporate capital tax off Cominco as well.

W. Hurd: I was invited to do something else tonight, but I couldn't resist standing and speaking to section 2 of this particular bill. I find it very interesting because it represents, I think, the philosophy of the bill, which is basically to allow Cominco, through the job protection commissioner, to seek tax relief. Any time the government brings forth an initiative that basically encourages that type of transaction is so out of character that I feel it incumbent upon me to stand and comment.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs well knows, Cominco was looking for a package of changes under the job protection commissioner's recommendations with respect to tax concessions at the municipal level because of the difficulty that the company was facing in paying municipal taxes to so many small jurisdictions. Another is the redress that was sought on environmental standards. I find it an interesting precedent that in the case of Cominco and Trail, which is a stronghold for the governing party these days, this type of legislation is nevertheless introduced so quickly by the current government. I understand that the legislation was mandated or called for by the job protection commissioner. Echoing the comments from the member for Prince George-Omineca, I just hope that should other one-industry communities without the same political representation, such as Kamloops or Powell River perhaps, run into difficulties and request redress in terms of shifting the tax burden, the government will be quick to react to efforts to shift the tax burden to the municipal level and assist corporations to survive.

As I said, this is so out of character that I felt it incumbent upon me to stand up and congratulate the government on bringing forth this kind of enlightened legislation when it comes to saving one-industry towns in our province.

K. Jones: I too stand to speak on section 2. Although I recognize that communities with one industry are experiencing a great deal of difficulty these days, as my colleague has said, many others are going to experience that and many others in the past have experienced that. My home town of Port Alberni has certainly experienced it. Are the operators in the mills in Port Alberni going to get the same type of arrangement? Is my community of Cloverdale going to get the same arrangements with the loss of the car museum that was a source of income for our community? You've already addressed Cassiar with this type of approach, but you're saying that was done by the previous administration.

What concerns me more is the one with the government and Cominco. Those people who have been involved in the labour movement know the experience of the situation of Western Canada Steel, where the workers were laid off without severance. They appealed to the labour standards act. They got severance given to them, and then Cominco took them to court and has sat on that process right up to today.

This case has not been....

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Delta North.

N. Lortie: The opposition, including this speaker, seems to want to focus on one section of this bill. I think that would better be done in committee stage. The purpose of second reading is to debate the purpose and principle of the bill. I would ask the Speaker to bring the member to order.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. member is quite right that we are discussing the principle of the bill, but thus far the Chair has not felt that the members have dealt in too much detail with the sections. Nonetheless, members are reminded to keep to the broad-based principle of the bill.

K. Jones: In actual fact we were talking on the generalities and principles behind this. This being one of those omnibus bills, you have to talk about one section of it because you can't relate one to the other -- they don't relate.

The key thing is, here is this government providing a subsidy to an operation of Cominco, which, at the same time, is not paying severance pay to workers in another operation that they were also responsible for. This government seems to be totally hypocritical in dealing 

[ Page 7434 ]

with this situation. Surely you would have seen fit to get the decision made with regard to Western Canada Steel before you'd start making a handout to Cominco. And I understand this is not the only handout Cominco is asking for; they're asking for grants from the province for this operation in Trail as well. So I think that it all amounts to a series of grants or cost savings to the Cominco operation, and this is a reduction of the costs of the operations of Cominco. Therefore other people whom this government should be interested in should be taken into consideration before the government brings forward this type of legislation.

L. Hanson: I know the minister is pleased with the amount of interest his bill has created. As I understand it, the purpose of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, was to give retroactive justification, in the case of error, for some act on the part of a municipality or regional district. Secondly, it was to provide enabling legislation or ability for a municipality or a regional district to enter into an agreement that wouldn't normally be allowed under the Municipal Act. I know we'll get into it in more detail when we get to the committee stage. But one section of the bill would seem to give a broad coverage: if any error has happened in the past or happens in the future, it's okay. I think that that's a principle of the bill that really wasn't intended in this act. Maybe the minister would comment on that when he is responding in his closure of second reading.

[9:45]

The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I just have two brief comments, because we want to try to do committee stage on another bill. In terms of the Cominco section of the bill, I want to inform my colleagues -- one colleague, in particular, who seems to misunderstand -- that this legislation is not the entire package for saving Cominco. I want them to recognize that this legislation enables the local government to move ahead and set a different variable tax rate for Cominco and therefore give tax reductions to the company.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you may want to check the bill.

We are basically very pleased to be able to ensure, as much as we can, that 2,500 jobs are maintained in Trail, and we will continue to do that. This government believes in protecting jobs, and that's what the Job Protection Commission is all about. We will do that. That's what this legislation is all about.

The comments made by my colleague and critic from the Okanagan are well taken. You should recognize that the reason the legislation in terms of the regional districts is before you is that a court case interpreted a section of the legislation for regional districts pertaining to delegating directors for hearings. You know what happened. The court interpreted it a certain way. The concern we have now, which has been expressed legally by the Attorney General, by others, and by regional districts that are deeply concerned, is that much of their work and plans are subject to challenges -- even in your areas, members -- and that would, of course, create chaos in the official community planning world. That's why we're doing that here.

In terms of the concern my colleague has about perhaps this being too broad, we'll discuss that in committee. We wanted to act as quickly as possible, quite frankly. There was deep concern that we wouldn't be protecting these regional districts and the Islands Trust.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, 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. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 23.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 23; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

D. Mitchell: Under section 1, some new definitions are being applied to the statute that is being amended by this bill. I have a question about one of the new definitions, that of the grant administrator. I am wondering if the minister can clarify for the committee what is contemplated by this new definition of grant administrator and whether or not it is necessary. I'm wondering, for instance, if it merely makes official a position that is already mentioned in the current act. In other words, while this bill defines grant administrator, the existing act refers only to collectors, presumably municipal tax collectors. Does this amendment simply make official what already exists or is it creating an entirely new position?

Hon. R. Blencoe: A good question from the member. My understanding is that the collector is local, and in this bill we are actually creating the office and authority of the provincial grant administrator. We currently have no authority for that office, or for it to do investigations and collect. As you know, the intent of this bill is to protect the integrity of our system. Is there any other problem you have?

D. Mitchell: I appreciate that clarification. Perhaps later in the bill we could discuss this, but is this grant administrator the person who would be responsible for the new investigative unit that the minister referred to during second reading stage of this bill?

[ Page 7435 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes. Unfortunately, we don't have the administrator of the homeowner grant program here. The administrator of the homeowner grant program is already there. A new role for that person will be to have the ability, in this office, to have the authority of the administrator. We are not creating another head of a department; it will be the same person.

L. Fox: I thank the member from West Vancouver for asking one of my questions.

The second question is that there was a change to the definition with respect to principal residence. I would like to understand why the minister saw it necessary to change that definition, recognizing that a little later on there are other obvious statements towards that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that the definition of principal residence includes two concepts: residency in British Columbia, and where a person makes his or her home. This has been at times difficult to enforce. We separated and moved the provisions on ownership and those on residence, and we just required some greater definition. That's for purposes of administering this act, to protect us.

L. Fox: But previously the principal residence was defined and usually described as the usual place where an individual, who was a permanent resident of British Columbia, made their home, and now we see a change in that. Is the intent of the change to look after individuals who may only spend six months in British Columbia and six months in the United States? Is it intended that they are in fact going to lose their homeowner's grant because they're not permanent residents of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We haven't changed the concepts. There's been a separation. The definition of principal residence in the past confused the two separate requirements. The revised definition only refers to where the person makes his or her home. The requirement to be permanently resident in B.C. is now stated in eligibility sections, which are coming up later under section 2(3) and (3.1) and section 3(2).

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I've got to mark my place here. Because of the lateness of the hour, I can tell you're going to go through these sections very quickly.

We get back once again to the eligible resident who's entitled to the grant as set out in section 1. It says here: "...is permanently resident in British Columbia, and occupies the eligible residence as his or her principal residence." I'm a little concerned about that particular situation, because the definition of a permanent resident suggests that an individual who goes south on a four-month vacation....

Hon. R. Blencoe: No.

L. Fox: Just as long as I have that clarified.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Residency or permanent residency is not only determined by location. We look for a number of other factors -- if you have a driver's licence in British Columbia or you are paying health care in this province. We can use a variety of tests to determine residency. Of course, when we're doing these checks through computer analysis, we can determine residency if some of these factors are completely missing: they don't have a British Columbia driver's licence; they don't pay health care here; they don't pay taxes here. They're living in another province. We're very conscious that we don't want to give the impression that.... Six months here and six months somewhere else would still be residency. If they're clearly resident elsewhere and not full-time B.C. residents, and if there are signs that they are using all the other components of the other province but applying for homeowner grants, then we have some concerns. The hon. member should recognize too, though, that there is an appeal procedure, as I understand it.

Am I correct? Yes, in section 13 there is an appeal procedure.

L. Fox: Just a little more clarification, because I think it's interesting that this minister is putting the opposite twist on this issue from what the Finance minister did. The Finance minister talked about the fact -- let me get this straight now -- that if an individual didn't have a permanent residence, he wouldn't be eligible for health care; but also that if he had a health care card, identifying him therefore as a British Columbian, anything he purchased outside of the province would become taxable in the province. What this minister is suggesting is the opposite: if he doesn't have an eligible card, then he isn't a permanent resident.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What kind of eligible card?

L. Fox: A health card, you mentioned. You know, it seems to me that the homeowner is going to be arguing one way with one ministry to try to get one case cleared up and be forced to argue with this minister -- or obviously it will be with the municipality -- in order to qualify for his homeowner grant. So he is going to be forced to go two directions.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The administration and interpretation of the act and the balancing of corroborating evidence to determine residency are within this ministry. The examples I was giving you were the tests we apply when we are taking a look at some of the grants and doing our comparisons of the computer data.

[10:00]

D. Mitchell: I'm very pleased to hear the minister indicate to the committee that it is his ministry that is responsible for determining the eligibility of who shall or shall not receive the homeowner grant. I'm pleased to 

[ Page 7436 ]

hear that, but I wonder if the minister could clarify one other apparent dispute between himself and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, with respect to eligibility.

This year recipients of homeowner grants received a letter very recently -- just last month -- from the Minister of Finance. In the letter the minister told all recipients of homeowner grants in the province about how the recent budget impacted on the homeowner grant. He said in the letter -- I have a copy of it here: "For homeowners who are seniors, widowed, handicapped or recipients of war veteran allowances, the grant is increased...." Apparently there is a mistake in this letter with respect to those who are widowed being eligible for receipt of the special homeowner grant. I wonder if the minister, while we're debating this section of this Bill, could confirm that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, clearly made a mistake when he was talking about the eligibility criteria for the homeowner grant.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not aware of the reference or the alluded-to mistake, but I will take it under advisement.

I think the Leader of the Third Party asked some questions the other day relating to a certificate of physically handicapped persons and property ownership, but I don't think it's related to this issue. I will take that under advisement, hon. member, and try to give you an answer.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's undertaking, but I'm surprised that he's not aware of this. There have been media reports on this error. Some of my constituents have contacted me, because they in turn have contacted this minister's ministry to get a clarification on this. The Minister of Finance has clearly stated that homeowners who are widowed are eligible for an increase in their homeowner grant.

Upon contacting the appropriate government ministries, whether it's the Finance ministry or this ministry, those widowed homeowners have been clearly told that they are not eligible, unless under certain circumstances. There may be some special circumstances where they could be eligible, but I would really like to seek some clarification from this minister in this committee right now on this, because it's an issue of some concern to a number of constituents.

There seems to have been some miscommunication. The Minister of Finance appears to have made a mistake. The letter that has gone out to every homeowner in British Columbia appears to contain the same error. It's what the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to earlier today as the junk-mail-by-discount-warehouse approach. Here's a letter that's gone to every resident and that seems to contain an error. Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs clarify that right now in this committee and confirm that his colleague made a mistake?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I've been in this House long enough to know what the hon. member is trying to do. I already indicated that I would get back to him. But I will let you know that there are clear rules about widowers and age. They are eligible at age 65 or over. If their husband was over 65 in the first year after their death, of course, my understanding is that eligibility would apply there as well.

D. Mitchell: I have one final question on this. The minister has clearly indicated that his ministry is responsible for the homeowner grant and for determinations of eligibility. Why, then, is his colleague the Minister of Finance writing to every person who receives the homeowner grant with this misinformation? Why would this minister not be writing to recipients of the homeowner grant to give them the correct information about who is eligible for the special homeowner grant?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member knows that it was a budget item, and the Minister of Finance deals with the budget. If that member wished to join one of the parties, he might get on for question period, and he could then ask the Minister of Finance those very questions.

L. Fox: Obviously, the later it gets, the more stretched we become are in terms of the questions and answers.

I have a question with respect to the clarification of section 2(3.l)(a) and (b). I think I know what the act is getting at. If a relative or individual acquires a home after one of their relatives dies or their spouse dies, and that individual qualifies for a senior citizen's supplement, but he or she doesn't register the home in their name for a number of years, this is suggesting that that person would only qualify for the homeowner grant if their age and circumstances allowed for that. Is that the situation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, apparently this corrects what was perceived to be a bit of an injustice, where all spouses or relatives can claim an additional grant in the year of death of the owner, if living in the residence.

L. Fox: A question arises around that, given the later sections of the bill and the fact that penalties are going to be applied to the municipality as the grantor of grants. How are they going to determine whether that house may be in the name of a deceased person? What emphasis is placed on the municipality to go through all the funeral announcements and make the corresponding changes? If they don't do that, later aspects of this bill put that municipality in a liability situation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: These are quite technical questions for this time of night. I would anticipate that the person who wants to claim the homeowner grant would make it quite clear to those responsible that they are eligible and that they wish to do so; that's the first responsibility. The second responsibility obviously lies with the municipality. We cannot anticipate every technical kind of issue when someone passes on. We obviously put out information to the local government. 

[ Page 7437 ]

We send out flyers, and we will be sending out changes to this to as many people as possible. That's part of the job, and that's part of the work of the homeowner grant administration branch.

You raise a point and we will take it under advisement, hon. member. As much as we can, we will ensure that people understand that we have changed an injustice. In the past they weren't eligible.

L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the point, but I am concerned about the liability of the municipality later on in the act. The minister suggests that some of the onus is on the individual who comes and applies for the grant. When there's a difference of something like $300 in the grant that an individual is going to achieve should the residence be in my spouse's name, who happens to have been 67 years old and I am only 60 years old, and I come in on behalf of my spouse to apply for and get the grant without reporting the fact that they're deceased, then in fact the liability of that falls on the municipality. Later in this act the onus is on the municipality to determine whether or not that individual should or should not have a certain degree of granting. So I think there are some concerns here and some extra liabilities that you're faced with in a municipality too. We may end up in the situation where we have to start to officially ID these people when they come in and apply for their grant. I'm not sure that the minister wants to do that. Maybe he does. There are some real concerns there.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Later on, section 13 deals with that. Again, as much as we can hope to inform people of their rights and try to cover some of the possibilities that you're talking about, the ultimate responsibility for claiming the grant correctly, even under these changes, does rely on the claimant. I think in the end the claimants, and not the municipality, would ultimately be responsible for an incorrect claim. But you're quite correct, hon. member, it is incumbent upon us to make sure we get this information out. Basically, we're trying here to correct an injustice and to make the system a little easier under these circumstances. You raise some good points, and we will make sure that we try to do as much as we can. But I think section 13 does cover that.

L. Fox: I'm well aware of section 13 and have several questions to ask with respect to that. But just one further question. Given that this is a new initiative to capture a group of people that, in the minister's mind at least, must be quite significant, can the minister tell us how many dollars are involved and would be saved by this particular change in the act? I'm concerned, in that sometimes we end up causing a lot more bureaucracy and expense in order to collect a few more coins. I'd like to know the significance in this case.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may wish to consult with some of his former colleagues who were the ministers at the time. They're the ones who started the study that led to this work. We've had a series of studies by auditors to look at this and a series of estimates of potential abuse. They think the abuse is between $3 million and $8 million. In my announcement I basically said that we hope and anticipate being able to recover or save about $5 million a year. It may very well be that by this legislation coming forward and people knowing that we now have a better system of checking and going after them, we will not only recover money but save money by people being warned off a little. We know there are considerable savings to be made here, and we're going to go after as many dollars as possible.

[10:15]

Your question also relates to staff. There are currently six people -- one director and five staff -- administering the homeowner grant to about 750,000 people. As recommended by the studies, we now have authorization from Treasury Board for three extra staff, giving us a total complement in that section of nine people to administer the grant on a daily basis and administer the act. It also give us the opportunity to do greater cross-referencing and to seek information that gives us the ability to catch those who are....

A. Cowie: On a point of order, hon. Chair. I'm a little worried. As official opposition we decided that we would go section by section and that I would particularly not speak too much so that we could get this thing through, and we're wandering all over the place. I would have loved to speak to those items myself, but I had decided not to do it until section 8. I would prefer to stay to the sections, if we could.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The committee can consider the manner in which they wish to proceed.

L. Fox: With all due respect to the Liberal critic, we are talking about section 2(3.1), which in fact is referring to eligibility of homeowner grants.

Just one final comment. The minister suggests that the legislation itself would be a deterrent to individuals applying for a grant which they didn't qualify for. I think that's very optimistic, because I don't know that outside of this House and the municipalities....

Given the time, I'm getting a signal from across the floor.

The Chair: Please proceed, hon. member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. The member has the floor. Please address the Chair and proceed.

L. Fox: It's rather optimistic to think that because the government passes a piece of legislation like this, the average individual out there is going to be aware of it and is not going to apply for a grant that he or she may not deserve.

Given the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Does the member wish to withdraw his motion?

[ Page 7438 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Hon. member, please address the Chair. You have a motion on the floor. Do you wish to withdraw your motion? The motion has in fact been withdrawn.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

L. Fox: You're going faster than I can turn the pages, hon. Chair.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

A. Cowie: Since a lot of these sections touch on this point, section 8 is probably the appropriate time to speak about it. The grant administrator, I take it, is already hired.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: It's the same person? In this modern day of computers, when one can cross-reference information, a lot of emphasis is on individual municipalities taking the responsibility. My question is: why couldn't the ministry just provide and regulate the computer program, making sure there isn't any misuse or duplication, and let the municipalities plug into it and get the information?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The question is well taken. One of the reasons that we are trying to pool this cross-referencing and investigation capacity is that currently we have 150 jurisdictions involved in administering the act and no way of coordinating it. To make these kinds of savings and really focus in, we decided that we will take it upon ourselves to do more of the administration, coordination and cross-referencing that local governments just weren't doing or didn't have the capacity to do.

The other question, of course, is that many times we have to go out of province to do our investigations -- I obviously don't want to give away the details of how some of the work has been done in terms of checking up on this -- and local government doesn't have that capacity or that kind of computer linkup. The provincial government has better capacity to do that kind of work.

A. Cowie: I'd like to express concern that at least the larger municipalities.... I did not take into respect the out-of-province cheques, but I would have thought that most of the wrongdoing is surely within municipalities, and that they eventually take the responsibility for it. I would hope that over time one might reduce this position, so that we're not having more bureaucracy than is necessary.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, the member's point is well taken. Of course, that was my concern when I went through this legislation and this office and the staffing. There is a point of no return, obviously, when you're trying to recover and you create more staff, and we're aware of it. All the studies and recommendations state that what we're doing is really on a very small shoestring, with a small number of staff. But I would point out that the local governments have been requesting this. Quite frankly, this is one of those times when we can claim uploading. We are taking more responsibility -- at our cost, I agree -- but saving local government the extra cost and the burden of doing quite technical, detailed investigative work.

A. Cowie: I have just one more question related to this. I wonder if the minister has thought of having the UBCM undertake this task, rather than the ministry.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I could ask, but I suspect I know the answer.

D. Mitchell: I think the member for Vancouver-Quilchena raised a good point about the cost-effectiveness of what the minister is doing with this amendment, in terms of the grant administrator and the tax collectors seeking information. A simple computer program would seem to be a viable option. I'm still not sure I understand exactly why a centralized computer system, with reporting from the 150 or so local governments, couldn't do the job. If the minister could address that a little more specifically, I would appreciate it.

In addition to that, the minister indicated earlier that research indicates that the amount of homeowner grant fraud may be anywhere between $3 million and $8 million a year, and his own estimate is that he's hoping to save $5 million a year. Is it possible for the minister to provide members of this committee the research he refers to that documents the extent of this fraud?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, this is a 1990 report, and I can provide that report to you. Basically my understanding is that the report was done in 1990. The former government had started some improvements. I can't remember the details, but they're in the report. What we're doing today is basically culminating the recommendations of the report by creating the administrative structure and the authority to do the work we require.

In regard to your point about local government being able to do it and about creating more staff, you've got to remember that this staff is small. It administers a very big program; 750,000 people are currently eligible for the homeowner grant. We are trying very hard to improve the administrative practices by properly enforcing provisions of the act. We're developing policy relating to the administration of the act on virtually a daily basis. I'm not getting into past practice or past governments, but it's quite evident that watching it and putting things into place that could have been done a long time ago just weren't done, but we're more aware of those sorts of things these days.

[ Page 7439 ]

We are not just doing computer work. You're quite correct, hon. member: we can do a lot more cross-referencing and data work. But there is investigative work that has to be done -- following up on suspects and sometimes referencing to police. Work to recover wrongly claimed grants can be quite onerous, but we are trying take out the daily routine by having more cross-referencing and databases that we're trying to acquire. We are going to be maintaining a provincewide database of grants claimed, and we're building that into the system. The level of computerization is very high. All suspect claims are subject to computer verification using the homeowner grant verification system, which is now considered to be an extremely good system and is recognized across the country; others are looking at it. It's a provincewide database, as I said. We are trying as much as possible to access other publicly available databases. Obviously we don't want, and are not allowed, to access information that is not public. We are doing far more auditing of the grant records of municipalities. We've stepped up that area as well. The member was concerned that if someone thought we were making an incorrect decision, there would be an appeal process, which has to be built in. That takes some time as well. We are doing a lot more in terms of looking at land titles and making sure that information about who is registered is available very quickly to us.

Hon. member, I can tell you that I've looked at it very carefully, and there is a heck of a lot of work done in this particular section. I can assure you that the staff, which currently numbers six, works very hard and at times is overloaded, quite frankly. Now we're going to be asking them -- with some additional staff, I agree -- to conduct another component of serious investigation and collection, where there is abuse. We think we're going to be successful.

D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this. Will the data collected by the homeowner grant fraud squad be accessible through freedom-of-information legislation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm told that none of it violates the privacy provisions of the freedom-of-information legislation.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The question was asked, hon. member.

K. Jones: Further to this question of access to private or publicly available databases, what is the minister actually referring to? What other publicly available databases on individuals are there?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously, we are very creative. But there is information, like land titles information, that is publicly available. The Assessment Authority has public information available to you and me. Telephone books, I can assure you, hon. member, are very useful in the work of this unit. Those are the ones I can think of at this point.

[10:30]

K. Jones: Perhaps I could suggest a few others that the minister may want to use, such as the motor vehicle licensing and Medical Services Plan databases. Are there perhaps others that we may have this investigation team, operated by the government, going into?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should be very careful when he refers to using medical services information. Of course, much medical services information is subject to privacy. We might utilize that, but we'd use only the portion that refers to addresses -- and nothing else. We have to be extremely careful in the databases we utilize, of course, because people want to make sure we're doing it properly. We will use only those databases that are publicly available -- driver's licences, obviously. Information is available, and it's available to government. That is one of the things we can do. I can assure you that those who claim a homeowner grant and have a driver's licence in Alberta on a full-time basis might make us suspicious, and we might do a little checking.

K. Jones: The whole concept of cross-checking databases is of great abhorrence to people who have a concern about privacy. It is one that is being addressed within the basis of the extension of freedom of information and privacy. It is of concern to all those who have had anything to do with the development of fair and secure privacy legislation across this country.

I think the minister's concept of using this cross-checking of databases is very dangerous and probably ill-conceived. Certainly I think the minister should consider withdrawing his thoughts in that line, go back to standard checking as to whether the person has applied in this or that municipality, stick to that and keep his nose out of other people's private lives.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will make a commitment to the member that we will be guided by the freedom-of-information and privacy regulations. There will be no violation of privacy. We will only use public information. I'm most surprised at this member and other members who try to cast some doubts on what we think is good public policy. We are protecting the integrity of the system of the homeowner grant, and yes, we are going to go after those who abuse. I make no bones about that. We will do that, and this unit, which is very efficient, is going to save the taxpayers in this province a lot of money.

Be assured, hon. member, that we will do it properly, and we will only use public information that you can get access to as well.

K. Jones: I have just one quick question. What does the minister propose to save in this regard? Does he have an indication of how much he is going to save?

Interjection.

K. Jones: Am I hearing $5 million?

[ Page 7440 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I suggest you read the Blues. I've already given that twice.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Fox: I will try to be brief, hon. Chair. In reading this over, it obviously deals with the unused portion of the homeowner grant that hasn't been needed to offset the school taxation. I am concerned about this, because it appears as though there has been an extension of time for the province to meet its liability, between this act and the last act. Am I correct in that? Are you now paying the municipalities later under this act than under the previous act?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a good question. We are not quite sure, and I don't want to mislead the member. I can't give a definitive answer. We will try to get to him on that. All I understand from the information is that we believe this updates legislation for current practices. That's the information I can share with him. But in terms of timing, I will get that to the member.

L. Fox: My memory tells me that the previous date was the end of January. In many small communities this particular payment is quite significant. I am concerned, because if there is a delay of 30 days in making that payment, that is a significant change. I find myself in a difficult situation when I can't confirm my feelings or my concerns, and the minister is unable to respond.

Hon. R. Blencoe: My notes do not suggest any change in timing. I would be very surprised if there was a change in timing. I am pretty sure that there is no change there, and the reference to February 28.... The deputy minister will see if we can find the old current act to see if there is a change. Maybe we could stand down this section, move on and come back. How is that?

The Chair: Section 9 to stand down.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

L. Fox: Once again -- and I come back to the liability question I talked about earlier in section 2 -- section 13 allows for the government to apply a fine to the municipality, should they find that the municipality hasn't acted in good faith or complied with the rules of the granting process. That's a concern, because once again there's no "save harmless" for the municipality with respect to this particular section, should an individual or a group of individuals fraudulently apply. It's my understanding that the municipality has the opportunity to go back on those taxpayers and retroactively collect what they've had to pay to the province, but now they're going to be subject to a fine of up to $10,000. To a community of 400 or 500 people -- and we have several in the province -- $10,000 is a whack of money. So I'm extremely concerned about that particular section.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously I don't want to belabour the point either, but again I go back to my original point that the primary emphasis still has to be on recovering from the claimant. The information and the policy and the prerequisites for claiming will be laid out, and I don't know how much more we can do about that. The earlier act was silent on this point.

L. Fox: That was my point. In fact, the act was silent, but the practice was that by the end of January those funds were paid. I believe you'll find that if you check it out. I recognize that having a date in the act is important, but I'm concerned about it.

I want to get back to section 13. The way he spoke, the minister seemed to be suggesting that the municipality would be able to go after the taxpayer to recoup the fine. That doesn't seem too logical to me. Is that what I heard? Perhaps you might clarify what you stated there.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I understand the member's concern. He's doing his job in raising an issue. But I have to say that the primary emphasis still has to be recovery from the claimant, and some responsibility lies there.

By the way, we go back to section 9, but the date hasn't changed. It's still February 28 in the act; it's the same act and the same date.

L. Fox: We'll go back to section 9 in a moment. There's no eligibility within this amendment or the existing act that allows the municipality to collect a fine from a taxpayer, which has been levied on the municipality by the provincial government, other than through civil action. Given the lateness of the hour, it would help me considerably if the minister would suggest, for the record, that section 13 would apply only if the municipality had not lived up to the regulations and requirements of delivering the grant approval process, but that it would not apply if a group of homeowners or a homeowner had not qualified legally for that grant.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate that the member is speaking up for local government, but there has to be some onus on local government to take responsibility for doing the correct job. There may very well be times when they have been negligent -- I assume that will be a very rare occurrence -- but if the local government did its job properly and there was no indication that it was negligent, given that it's provincial money, the provincial government will obviously go after the claimant to get the money back. I put it to you that that will be the course we will take. But I don't think local government can be let totally off the hook. They need to have some responsibility in terms of this act. Some onus should be upon them to carry out their responsibilities as well.

[ Page 7441 ]

L. Fox: I hate, at this hour, to belabour this thing. But the problem is that local governments would be under extreme pressure. If they didn't apply the process properly, the taxpayers would be mad as heck. If in fact the municipality made an error, they would end up having to meet demands retroactively. There's a huge accountability factor there, and it's called the taxpayer. So I have some concerns and difficulties with even the need for a fine, because, if this grant process were not administered properly and the taxpayers had to go back a couple of years and pay taxes retroactively, that would be extremely painful for the municipality.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I think we are going to great lengths on this section. But even under the old legislation, the local government had to show diligence. So again I come back....

L. Fox: Now you'll even fine them.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, hon. member, I think local government must have some responsibility to show due diligence. If they make mistakes and are negligent, some of the responsibility should be theirs.

A. Cowie: To get out of this dilemma we're in right now, I would ask the minister whether a municipality has ever been fined under the existing legislation, which does allow for a fine.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We are not aware of any. But you should also know that it was just directed at claimants, obviously. At this time we are trying to put some onus on local government as well.

D. Symons: On the same point, I noticed that back on section 2 the member for Prince George-Omineca asked a question dealing with the spouse of a deceased person, who would be eligible for the grant for the first year, but maybe because of age differences, in following years would not be.

[10:45]

In this case the municipality may carry on allowing that higher homeowner grant, unaware of the situation. Section 13 seems to give the government the right to fine the municipality in that case. I would like the minister to be on record as saying something to the effect that the penalty would be for intentionally providing false information. If it's not intentional, then I think all my concerns would be over. In some cases the municipality could be caught in a bind and it's unintentional; it's not really because they are at fault. You are suggesting that the municipality was somehow lax in doing something before. There can be cases where, through no fault of the municipality, they could end up being there because of the format of the legislation. How are you going to cover that and make sure the municipality isn't going to inadvertently suffer this $10,000 fine?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We will work very closely with local government. If it's unintentional, we'll take that into consideration. I also want to put on the record that UBCM has looked at this legislation. It's been on the floor for a week, and as you know, UBCM looks at everything that comes down for local government. I haven't -- and I don't think staff have -- had any remarks or concerns expressed.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That may be true. However, I hope we have given you some relief. Obviously there will be some room there for consideration when it has been unintentional. That's on the record.

D. Mitchell: I have a very brief question. Is the minister able to inform members of the committee as to the infractions under this section of the act? Are they largely created by what might appear to be clerical errors on behalf of some municipalities? Is there a breakdown that can be offered? Is it mostly smaller municipalities that are affected by these kinds of infractions, as opposed to some of the larger municipalities that might have the staff to assist with this? In other words, if this issue primarily affects smaller municipalities, then I think it's a serious one, as the member for Prince George-Omineca has indicated.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Apparently the largest abuse is double claims -- claiming on one property in one municipality and also claiming on another. The second, I believe, is those who live in a neighbouring province and clearly are not residents in the province.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

A. Cowie: Just a clarification under this section, it's my understanding that the municipality pays the provincial government regardless of their collection. Is that true? Would the municipality be required to pay even if they haven't collected?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My notes here say that the municipalities will pay the province promptly and collect debt through the property tax system. Further interest charges accumulate to municipalities.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

A. Cowie: Here again, I just want a clarification on record. The grant will be taken off of the school tax portion? Is that new?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The municipalities, as you know, collect the school taxes for us, and then we deduct the amount of the homeowner grant upon receiving that money.

L. Fox: Just so I understand it, the province is billed for its portion of the homeowner grant immediately upon payment of the taxes on July 1 or 2 -- whenever 

[ Page 7442 ]

that municipality collects them -- and deducts that from their payables to the school district. Is that not correct?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we're talking about deducting the homeowner grant from the school tax revenue that the municipalities collect, and therefore they just return the net amount.

L. Fox: Correct. I had problems reading and trying to understand it, and to be honest, I didn't spend a lot of time on it. But this doesn't in any way negate the municipalities' opportunities to realize the unused portion of the homeowner grants. They will still have the benefit of that against municipal taxes.

Hon. R. Blencoe: There are no changes in that regard.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I know it's getting late, but could I ask for leave to go back to the previous section for one small technical question? It's puzzling me, and it relates to the period that we can go back to retroactively.

The Chair: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

The Chair: The Chair would like clarification. Are we to call the question on section 15 and then go back?

Section 15 approved.

On section 14.

D. Mitchell: It refers to the fact that the office can go back six years for investigating. But the previous section increased the fine from $2,000 to $10,000 and leaves intact the two-year limit on fines in the original act. Is there a problem with the inconsistency? Does this bill fail to address that, or am I missing something? Is there perhaps an error in this bill as a result?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm trying to get this right. There is a difference between recovery and fines. You could have recovery for up to six years, but you can have fines for up to two years. We refer you back to subsection (10) of the new section 13, hon. member, which will clarify that for you. But I have to say that that was a very good question; you nearly had us.

Section 16 approved.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. We did stand down section 9 previously. We will revert to section 9.

On section 9.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, the date of February 28 in the new act is the same as the date in the old act.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank the House for its indulgence and patience. I now move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The Committee met at 2:51 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)

One vote 14: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).

K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister a bit about bottom fishing. What is the status of the bottom fishery on the west coast at the present time? What actions is he taking to protect it?

Hon. B. Barlee: Bottom fishing on the west coast is doing quite well. We're tracking the stocks, and so is DFO, of course. We have some success stories in some of the new species -- black cod is one. We probably had three or four species that were considered throwaway fish about five or six years ago and have a significant market now.

K. Jones: You say that it's doing quite well. Last year the official opposition had to bring to your attention the concerns about and the need to do something with regard to those so-called throwaway fish -- the hake and the other bottom fish that are now being harvested by offshore fisheries. What role have you played, and what role do you plan to play this year, 

[ Page 7443 ]

in making sure that British Columbia fishermen and shoreworkers get their true apportionment from that fishery that's coming from there, instead of going offshore?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm very glad that the member pointed out hake, for instance. Our take and processing of hake in 1990 was just about zero tonnes. In 1991 it was 6,000 tonnes; in 1992 it was 19,000 tonnes. We have provision for up to 30,000 tonnes. So we have done a very good job on some of those bottom fish.

I think that I am the only Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has gone into some of these small places that are really benefiting from what I think is our long-range vision. I've been to Ucluelet; I've been to Browns Bay; I've been to a lot of these places. Some members of the opposition have a significant interest in the fisheries; so have I. We are devoting more resources, more money and more staff to it.

The Chair: Hon. member, before I recognize you, I would caution the committee to direct their remarks through the Chair, please.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us a detailing of the percentage of the various bottom fish types that are, first of all, being caught by British Columbians and, secondly, landed for processing in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: In regard to certain fish, like halibut, we process practically all of it. Our processing of hake has gone up significantly. It is around 50 percent in some of the other ground fish. Virtually all of these are increases. We are processing more fish and working toward processing more fish all the time.

K. Jones: I really didn't get a definite percentage of the fishery that we have in British Columbia. Could the minister please respond to that with regard to each class of fish?

Hon. B. Barlee: It would be slightly over 50 percent of ground fish and higher in the other categories. Salmon is 95 percent, and herring is virtually 100 percent.

K. Jones: What portion of the hake fishery and the pilchard fishery are we receiving? Where is the rest of it going?

Hon. B. Barlee: That is a difficult question, and I'll tell you why. Hake starts in Baja, California, and runs all the way up California, Oregon and through British Columbia, so we get more than our share in British Columbia. It starts in the deep south of North America and runs up the coast, so it is harvested in Mexico, California, Oregon, and in Washington. We have some figures coming out of those areas, but we don't know precisely how much they harvest. Certainly our share of that harvest has gone up dramatically from zero tonnes to about 19,000 tonnes, with provision for 30,000 tonnes.

K. Jones: What are the estimated quantities of hake and pilchard found off the west coast of Vancouver Island?

Hon. B. Barlee: Our share is about 60,000 tonnes. The American total for the three states is about 200,000 tonnes.

K. Jones: I'll try once more. What are the total expected runs off the west coast for those fish?

Hon. B. Barlee: The TAC, total allowable catch, is about 60,000 tonnes. We are processing between 19,000 and 20,000 tonnes of that directly onshore. Originally all of that went to the Polish factory ships, Russian factory ships and so on. So we're reaching into that stock and starting to process more and more of that as time goes on. We have an agreement with the federal government, which I negotiated with John Crosbie about a year and a half ago, and we are now getting much more than we were. So those processing jobs are starting to land in British Columbia.

K. Jones: What is the holdup in processing more of those jobs in British Columbia? As you said, in the past it was going to offshore fishery. Is it still going to offshore fishery? Is there some problem with our negotiations with the federal government in failing to get British Columbia's or Canada's fair share of that fishery? Or is there some problem in supporting the onshore fishery and our own fishermen in getting the catch?

Hon. B. Barlee: As you know, hake is used to produce surimi for the Japanese market. The price for surimi has gone down significantly since last year, and both our major processing plants in Ucluelet are virtually running at maximum.

[3:00]

K. Jones: I'm not sure what I have to do to get an answer on that question. I got a sidetracked response. Could the minister answer the original question?

Hon. B. Barlee: I thought I had answered that. We have a 60,000 tonne share, and almost 20,000 tonnes of that is being used. It's going up every year. Hake produces surimi. We used to get 6 cents a pound, and last year we averaged $1 a pound. Those processing jobs are going into British Columbia. We're working to get more of those processing jobs in British Columbia, and we are succeeding. I don't think I can give you much more of an answer than that.

K. Jones: I'd like to transfer over to another area. With regard to shellfish and shellfish processing, could the minister give us an indication of where his jurisdiction lies in the whole shellfish process -- from the establishment of shellfish licensing claims through to the finished product in the hands of the people of British Columbia?

[ Page 7444 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: This is a two-pronged response. We license the farms; the Environment ministry licenses the tenure. So that is the division of responsibility between those two ministries.

K. Jones: Could the minister please explain to us what he means by the tenure, and is that the vehicle that gets it through to the consumer in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: This is something like a mining licence. That is, the foreshore rights for those various operations get tenure rights from Crown lands, which is under Environment, and licensees may then carry on the various operations required in that particular area.

K. Jones: Could the minister please respond to the question of what goes on beyond the actual growing and harvesting location? Does the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have a role in the rest of the process -- through to the table in a person's home?

Hon. B. Barlee: After the harvesting of the clams or oysters, the processing plant licences for the shellfish are controlled by us. They must be processed through us. We check them, then it eventually goes to the retail outlets and onto the table.

K. Jones: In that processing plant licensing, you say you check them. What do you check them for?

Hon. B. Barlee: We have an MOU with the Ministry of Health. They may check for various diseases -- red tide and so on -- that occasionally occur in the shellfish or aquaculture industry.

K. Jones: For the general public's information, and mine as well, what is an MOU?

Hon. B. Barlee: An MOU is a memorandum of understanding.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain what that memorandum of understanding does? What is its purpose, and what is the whole intent of the ministry's role in regard to it?

Hon. B. Barlee: The MOU with the Ministry of Health gives them the policing powers to regulate whether or not this particular catch is in good enough shape to be passed onto the retail shelves. It's logical; they are more prepared for that. Indeed, it should fall under their jurisdiction.

K. Jones: Does that mean that although you have the jurisdiction and responsibility, through an MOU you pass that on to the Ministry of Health, which has more capability for dealing with it? Let me clarify the policing powers. What are they doing in policing the process? What specifically are you passing on in the way of responsibility?

The Chair: We are under a division call for the main House. We will recess this committee to accommodate the division. At the end of that division, we will be under direction of the main House and, in absence of any other direction, we will reconvene here.

The Committee recessed at 3:07.

The Committee resumed at 3:15 p.m.

Hon. B. Barlee: I should go over this so we can divide the responsibilities of the various areas: one of these responsibilities belongs to Health; a number belong to the DFO, which is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the federal fisheries area; and some belong to our area. DFO certifies the growing waters, where the various stock comes from. They test shellfish. They license the offshore fisheries as part of their responsibility, and they license the export of shellfish. We issue licences to the shellfish processors, and we require all of the shellfish to be properly labeled. But when that shellfish is examined for health reasons, that falls to the Ministry of Health because they are more properly equipped to do that. Once it gets into the stores, that again falls to the Ministry of Health to ensure that that stock going into the stores is healthy enough for public consumption. I hope I've covered that adequately.

K. Jones: Could you describe how your MOU directs your responsibilities to the Ministry of Health? How does that operate? What's the detailing of the MOU?

Hon. B. Barlee: To save time, hon. Chair, I think it would be better if we gave the hon. member a copy of the MOU with the Ministry of Health.

K. Jones: Would the minister provide it at this point, so we could carry on the discussion? Either that, or give us a summary of it so we could carry on the discussion?

Hon. B. Barlee: I haven't got a copy in my back pocket, but I think we can come up with one. If you could proceed along another area of questioning, we will provide that later on in the afternoon.

K. Jones: We'll do that. Would we have an opportunity to review it later today? We could bring it up in a later part of the estimates. Thank you, I'll defer to my colleagues.

R. Chisholm: I'm going to go back to what we covered a little bit yesterday. I'd like to put something into the record on B.C. 21 so the minister will know where I'm coming from.

This is a letter we received. It's a reference to the salmonid program. It says: "Dear Mr. Harcourt...."

The Chair: Hon. member, it's never appropriate to mention a member by name in the House.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll take your direction on that. It says:

[ Page 7445 ]

"Dear Premier: As an NDP party member, member of the fisheries sectoral committee of the treaty negotiation advisory committee, and president of the Steelhead Society of British Columbia, I must express gross indignation at (1) recent budget cuts exceeding $1 million in the budget of the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment, and (2) the transfer of that money to extremely dubious `enhancement' projects to be administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

"Mr. Premier, the future of B.C.'s salmon will not be helped by such short-sightedness. The future lies in protecting and enhancing stocks of wild fish, the mandate of provincial Fisheries, and a mandate now in jeopardy from the B.C. 21 community salmonid enhancement and restoration program.

"Mr. Premier, if you think this `innovative' program will help wild stocks of fish, simply look where much of the existing federal monies for community salmon enhancement are directed: artificial production of salmon. Sir, if you believe that artificially produced salmon can save B.C.'s commercial and recreational fisheries, take a look south of the border where massive and expensive hatcheries have been abysmal failures. The weight of juvenile fish released into the Columbia River exceeds the combined weight of returning adults.

"Please, Mr. Premier, do not waste the taxpayers' money, and do not abandon your duty to protect B.C's wild fish stocks. Restore the budget of the fish and wildlife branch. Avoid the temptation of doling out money for make-work projects to a ministry that cares more about farming and canning fish than about protecting the wild stocks that are the future and heritage of this province."

I'd like you to make a few comments so that this individual can have his fears alleviated or maybe proven to be true.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would ask for some clarification. I'll offer the minister a caution, in that neither B.C. 21 nor the Ministry of Environment come under the direction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Would you clarify your question and address the specific areas of administration of the ministry that is currently being examined in estimates, please.

R. Chisholm: Then I'll ask the question a little differently. A million dollars was put into B.C. 21 under the salmonid enhancement program. How is that going to be used? You've heard some fears of the general public. Can you alleviate those fears?

The Chair: Again, hon. member, this minister does not administer B.C. 21. It does not come under the direction of this minister, so would you redirect your question to the appropriate ministry.

R. Chisholm: Then I'll have to go back to yesterday's Hansard, because the minister said he was still in control of the moneys in the salmonid enhancement program. The Blues are right here, if that is in question.

Hon. Chair, all I am trying to do is send out the message to the public that the fisheries stock will be taken care of, because it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Now it has been transferred. This person is afraid that the responsibility will be dropped, and he wants assurance from the minister.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification, hon. member. It still causes a little difficulty for the Chair when you address areas of environment in direct reference to the B.C. 21 programs. I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if an area in here comes under the direct administration of his office and to restrict his answers to exactly that area.

Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Indeed, that question is out of order, but I will give some help there.

We are the lead ministry. That $1 million was not reallocated from any other ministry. That was a separate fund under B.C. 21, which is a separate funding of millions of dollars for job creation and various areas like job training. It's based on the community response. There are five ministries involved: the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, the ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism. We are the lead ministry in that only.

R. Chisholm: If that is the case, then which minister would be responsible for that, or who should this question be asked of, so that this member of your party can direct it to right person?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are the lead ministry, so our ministry is essentially responsible, in consultation with the other four ministries.

R. Chisholm: I don't think I'll bother trying to get the minister to answer the question, because obviously he's going to evade it. We will move onto other areas, like the aboriginal area, hon. minister.

We seem to have had some problems in the past....

The Chair: Please address your remarks through the Chair, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: It is through the Chair, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Hon. member, your remarks through the Chair, please.

R. Chisholm: Through the Chair, hon. Chair, what does this minister intend to do, or how has he advised the federal ministry of what to do, if the aboriginals make their own plans and their own rules in controlling the Fraser River?

Hon. B. Barlee: Hon Chair, that question is out of order. It is not our jurisdiction.

The Chair: Hon. minister, the Chair finds that that question calls for a conclusion and that it is hypothetical in nature. Therefore it does not come under the direct 

[ Page 7446 ]

administration of this minister. Could you perhaps rephrase the question, hon. member?

R. Chisholm: I don't think that it's necessary to rephrase the question. It has been answered already.

Has the provincial government considered funding natives to become full participants in the commercial fisheries -- such as through the Native Brotherhood? If not, why not? If we have considered it, how much have we put toward this program?

Hon. B. Barlee: We work in consultation with Aboriginal Affairs on native fisheries issues, so if there is a native fisheries issue that does impact on us, Aboriginal Affairs informs us of this and we work together as a dual ministry.

R. Chisholm: If that is the case, are we working together as two ministries to help fund the Native Brotherhood? I ask this question because there is a program before the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs right now. He stated that you were negotiating a $7.5 million loan guarantee for it which would then allow them to get federal money to buy into the fisheries.

Hon. B. Barlee: Every proposal from various aboriginal groups or first nations is considered on its own merits. This is one of the proposals that has come forward.

R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, can you give us an update on the exact status of that proposal?

The Chair: Hon. member, address your remarks through the Chair, please.

R. Chisholm: Through the Chair, hon. Chair, can you tell us exactly....

The Chair: Order, please. For clarification, the requirement in estimates, debates and proceedings in the House is that the question not be asked directly to the minister. That's the interpretation of the standing order and the rule that requires debate to come through the Chair.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. Through the Chair to the minister.... After all, I wouldn't want to get myself thrown out for harassment from the Chair, but....

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please. The Chair is here to interpret the standing orders and to facilitate the debate. The Chair does not harass hon. members. This is only to bring to the committee's attention the necessity to carry on debate within the standing orders; the requirement is that debate be carried on through the Chair, not directly from one member to another -- if that helps clarification.

K. Jones: On a point of order, I think the Chair is overusing the rules in order to slow down the process.

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please.

K. Jones: The Chair isn't following the usual procedure of trying to facilitate the process. I think that it would be much better if the Chair were to be a little more lenient in his strict interpretation of the rules of order so that the flow of the session -- which is the intention of this process -- can occur. I think it would make it much easier for everybody involved.

The Chair: Thank you for your input. Again, the Chair and the committee are bound by the standing orders. The requirement to conduct debate through the Chair is applied in the main House and in this committee, and that is the way this committee will be conducted, hon. members.

R. Chisholm: Does this government support any of the following programs financially: the native fishermen's economic development program, the salmonid enhancement program, and the community development program? If so, how much does each of these programs receive?

[3:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: Our ministry does not provide funding to any of those. We have ten other proposals that are on the table: (1) the first nations consultation contract of approximately $50,000; (2) Western Indian Agriculture Corp.'s proposal for $40,000; (3) the Kwakiutl band kelp research guardianship program is about $15,000; (4) the Sliammon band marine resource planning initiative is about $25,000; (5) Western Indian Agricultural Producers Association proposal for a strategic plan is about $2,800; (6) Interior Indian Fisheries Commission, which is co-management of coarse fish, is about $19,000; (7) the Kwakiutl Territorial Fisheries Commission aquaculture co-management initiative is about $30,000; (8) WIAC and the Secwepemc Council in the Shuswap area on the South Thompson have asked for about $10,000; (9) the Alliance Tribal Council have asked for $35,000; and (10) the Tsimshian Tribal Council have asked for $14,000 for kelp inventory. The total comes to about $242,000.

R. Chisholm: What formal process has the minister established to ensure that the ministry's and the industry's interests are represented in the claim settlement process?

Hon. B. Barlee: That does not fall specifically under the aegis of my ministry. It falls under Aboriginal Affairs, and they have a third-party advisory committee.

R. Chisholm: It may fall under the other ministry's aegis, as you say, but what are you doing to ensure that fisheries is protected for all people in this province? You are the Minister of Fisheries, after all.

Hon. B. Barlee: I am visiting guest minister in many of those instances where that comes up, and we always have staff members on that committee -- in fact, 

[ Page 7447 ]

one of them is here. Sometimes both of them are on that committee, so they are always recognizing our presence in that particular area.

R. Chisholm: Will fisheries be excluded from land claims negotiation tables or will this resource be a topic of discussion?

Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to answer for Aboriginal Affairs, but, again, that belongs under the aegis or mandate of Aboriginal Affairs, and not under my ministry.

R. Chisholm: It may come under the jurisdiction of that ministry, but surely you have some idea where this minister stands in these negotiations. Surely we can send a message to the commercial industry, the sports industry and the general public on exactly where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stands in these aboriginal negotiations.

Hon. B. Barlee: Most of the treaty areas of interest, as far as fish are concerned, are for offshore fish. So that is a federal responsibility or a responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We have members on the various committees. This does not fall directly under our jurisdiction.

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

H. De Jong: I once asked a lawyer who was doing a lot of work in court what he liked best about being under cross-examination by another lawyer. He said: "It's the getting up and the sitting down, because on busy days I don't need to do my sit-ups."

An Hon. Member: On sit-downs he's faster.

H. De Jong: That's right. So perhaps the minister may not have had time to have his sit-ups this morning either, but he's getting the exercise.

I would like to ask, first of all, for some clarification. Has the Agriculture ministry taken part on the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, and is that under or part of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe the member is referring to a federal committee. If that is the case, of course the provincial government does not have a member on that committee.

H. De Jong: For further explanation, I have here a brief given by the Northern Processors Association to the Parliamentary Committee on Forestry and Fisheries. It would appear that it's federal. However, the provincial government is mentioned in the brief, as such, and that's why I was a little confused as to whether the provincial Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had a person representing the province or the ministry on that particular committee.

Hon. B. Barlee: That is a federal committee. The member from British Columbia on this particular committee was a former Minister of Agriculture, David Stupich from Nanaimo. We would not be represented on that committee.

H. De Jong: That makes my questioning a whole lot easier, because the brief is quite detailed. A number of issues are raised in the brief.

I suppose there will always be a certain amount of difficulty as to what are native and non-native fishing -- if I may call it that -- and where the rights of both sides begin. Rather than going into this brief, perhaps the minister could explain to us today whether any headway has been made on that over the last year. The minister referred earlier to a committee that had been working on this issue. There is strong criticism about the lack of direction and policing by the federal government on this whole issue, and it pertains to both sides of the fence. Certainly that has to be a concern to us and many British Columbians, on both sides of the issue. My question is very broad at this point. Has our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made any presentations, on behalf of the total fishing industry, about these basic complaints that have arisen many times over -- in particular the summer of 1992.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fair comment. We met with the northern processors last year; I met with them personally, and so did the Premier. We know of their concerns. We have expressed our concerns minister to minister with the federal government -- from me to the Hon. John Crosbie. Our concerns are: first of all, conservation of the stock and whether that impacts aboriginal or first nations fisheries, high seas fisheries or third-party fisheries, and so on; next is consultation, meaning full consultation; then there is compensation, in case there has to be compensation in the area being impacted; and finally, certainty. These are the four Cs that we have followed pretty significantly. I think the federal government has responded to them adequately.

H. De Jong: I have just one further question on this item. It says here that only tribal councils are given the right to operate under the "homeland fisheries," which really allows only native councils to operate under that particular situation. There appeared to have been a mix of that. Other fishermen were on the natives' boats and using their equipment in order to fall within that category. Is the minister familiar with that situation?

Hon. B. Barlee: That situation last year, which occurred on the Fraser and just offshore, was under federal jurisdiction. This year it will be on a communal rather than individual basis. In fact, the Hon. John Crosbie talked about that very briefly this morning. He thinks the process will be much better this year. It is our general understanding that the process is going to be more strictly adhered to -- certainly in respect to conservation of the stock and to enforcement, where it is necessary. Again, that falls almost entirely under federal jurisdiction.

[ Page 7448 ]

H. De Jong: I have a further question on that. Seeing that the whole process as well as the policing of these situations is far removed from Ottawa itself -- certainly the bureaucrats that are supposed to do the policing -- and that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction on that particular issue, has the minister at any time made any suggestions or proposals to the federal government so that issue could be dealt with provincially?

I firmly believe that it's an issue that can be policed. Where there is a will, there is a way. There appears to be an unwillingness in Ottawa to deal with that particular issue -- and perhaps some other conflicts between the natives and the whites -- effectively. So my question really is: has any proposal been made, and has there been a response of any kind from the federal government?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've had a significant impact on this. We contacted the federal government after the experiment on the Fraser last year and suggested a number of things. They have followed up on this, essentially. They have a new licensing technique and scheme; there's certainly better monitoring. There's greater enforcement both by native officers and others. There is now a written agreement among the various bands in that particular scheme. So we've had significant impact in all four of these areas.

R. Chisholm: The case has been argued in court that natives historically did not participate in the commercial fisheries; the opposite has also been argued. What is the position of this government on whether or not the first nations used commercial fishing transactions before colonial contact? Have you had discussions with the federal minister on this point, and has there been a conclusion discussed that we adhere to as a province?

The Chair: Before the hon. minister gives the answer, hon. member for Chilliwack, I would appreciate if you would address all your comments through the Chair. Again, I refer to the use of the pronoun "you." If you substitute "he," then I think we'll be clear.

Hon. B. Barlee: I cannot adequately answer because this case is still before the courts, which is hopefully resolving the right of the Indians to sell fish on a commercial basis. I certainly cannot comment on that.

[3:45]

R. Chisholm: On June 7, 1991, a member of the NDP introduced a private member's bill, which I mentioned yesterday. The minister never did give me a reply as to whether he sees a form of this bill coming before the Legislature to ensure that we have the value-added taken care of in this province and not sent out to other jurisdictions like the United States or offshore canning ships.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member is probably referring to the Magnuson Act. We are influencing the federal government in respect to this, and we are getting a significant amount of American fish processed in British Columbia. I think we are making a fair amount of progress on that.

R. Chisholm: The Magnuson Act is the act this bill was mirrored on -- as I said, Bill M206. It was introduced by a former colleague of yours in this House at the provincial level. I'm wondering if this is going to be done at the provincial level, thus ensuring that the jobs remain in British Columbia. As for the overage of fish coming into Canada to be processed, that is the overage that they cannot process in the state of Alaska.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member is perhaps confusing our jurisdiction with the federal one. This is under federal jurisdiction, not under provincial jurisdiction. It never has been. So I can't comment on the 1991 proposal. I think that was made by one of our former members, but it certainly still falls under federal jurisdiction.

R. Chisholm: That bill was introduced at the provincial level, so I gather that at one time it was considered that it could be effective at that level. I'll go on to another question, seeing as we're not going to get an answer on that one.

The Premier has travelled to Southeast Asia numerous times, and so has this minister, in the name of promoting British Columbia trade. However, we still see a decrease in market demand for our fish in Japan, which is forcing many processing plant closures in the province. Does the minister see benefits coming from these jaunts to these Southeast Asian countries? Are we going to see something in the near future? Have we something coming from these jaunts in the way of benefits, such as contracts? Like I said, if you look at the averages right now, they are still in decline; they are not going up at the present time.

Hon. B. Barlee: On the contrary, we have done quite well. You said that I have been to Southeast Asia a number of times. Once is not a number of times. The Premier has been there twice; that is not really a number of times. Both of these trips were beneficial to the province as a whole. We formed some alliances with various people in both Japan and Hong Kong. In Japan, there is a different sort of process. Some of those companies have been doing business with each other for over a thousand years, great-great-great-great-grandfather to great-great-great-grandfather, and they require a certain understanding of how we do business. They size up the individual. We have done quite well.

On the island of Hokkaido, for instance, we have a number of plants that are processing our hake and doing extremely well. We are also concentrating on processed meats, apples, Canadian wine and gingseng, which is a significant seller -- specifically in Hong Kong. We are really quite well received in these areas.

This is becoming the powerhouse of Southeast Asia, so we think we should have a presence there. Some of 

[ Page 7449 ]

the individuals are extremely powerful in this area. Mr. Ogawa, a Japanese multimillionaire, was up looking for a joint-venture on Vancouver Island last year. He phoned me and wanted to jump down the Island. He made five stops coming down the Island against a headwind all the way to get to Victoria to see me. So I think that we have built up some solid alliances, and we will continue to do so. The Japanese like doing business with us. There is an old Japanese saying -- I can't remember the Japanese words -- which is: "U.S.A. number seven, Canada number two," and of course Japan is number one. I don't mind being in the number two position behind the Japanese, as long as the Americans are in seventh position.

R. Chisholm: You stated that hake and other produce were sent over there. Is the processing being done here in British Columbia, or are we sending raw product over to Japan or to Korea?

Hon. B. Barlee: We used to get 6 a pound for the hake. Now we are getting $1 a pound -- or we got $1 a pound last year; the price has fallen off somewhat this year. That takes some of the pressure off the processing plants. We are trying to get value-added for all of these processing areas, and I think we are doing that. It's a slow process. It is not accomplished overnight, nor do we expect it to be accomplished overnight. We used to ship raw, bulk shrimp to Japan. Now we ship value-added shrimp to Japan. So these are areas that we are concentrating on. If you examine the total moneys that British Columbia received about ten years ago in fish, it would probably be around $400 million or $500 million. Now the total is around $800 million or $900 million, so there is a significant increase. It is growing faster than the norm, and that's why we're putting various embellishments on this particular part of the ministry.

R. Chisholm: I gather by that answer that we are still sending raw product. Can you tell me what we're doing in this province to attract value-added industries? Are we going out of our way, or are you working with the Minister of Economic Development to try to bring in new companies? I know there were various communities that were looking for loans to increase the amount that they could process. What has been done in these areas? Are we working on those areas, or are we still going to keep on sending raw product?

Hon. B. Barlee: The herring, for instance, which we virtually control 100 percent of in the province, is landed in British Columbia. The roe is processed and then sent to Japan. So the majority of that profit really lands and ends up in British Columbia.

We have other initiatives carrying on with the Ministry of Advanced Education, which also looks at enhancing our ability to diversify and develop in the fishing industry. So Advanced Education is one of our partners. Economic Development, Small Business and Trade is another one of our partners and, to a lesser degree, Tourism is a partner. There's B.C. 21, the Ministry of Finance is a partner there, and ISTC is also a partner, so we're reaching out fairly well.

We have a vision for the fisheries industry. I think of those people on the coast who have mentioned to me that I am the first Fisheries minister they've ever seen up the coast, and some of them have been there for 30 or 40 years. I get into those small towns and villages. I have no problem flying into Port Hardy. I have no problem going to Ucluelet or Browns Bay or wherever we are located up there, and we are making some impact.

Sometimes we have joint-ventures with the Japanese. These joint-ventures are beneficial, I think, to both areas: both to the province and to those companies who are interested in investing in the province. The Japanese have stated that we are in a unique position. We have significant rivals all the way around the world. Certainly Russia is a sleeping giant; we know that. Chile is a significant competitor. The United States is a competitor. Japan itself is a competitor. China will become a competitor. So we're not alone.

We have to adopt a long-term strategy, and we definitely are. We've done a couple of things here. We have a marinated groundfish project, which means we have value-added in this particular area. We have a value-added shark project to produce a variety of consumer-friendly products. Shark was essentially a throwaway fish years ago. Now we're getting value-added in that particular area. So this is a process we're working on steadily. We have a long-term vision, and I think that vision is slowly being realized. As I say, hon. member, it doesn't happen overnight but is an evolving process.

R. Chisholm: I'll turn my sights now onto Agriculture. We've pretty well covered the Fisheries end of it, except for maybe one question. Could you give me a number on how much money we are spending in the value-added enhancement area in the fisheries? You have given me a couple of instances, but how much of our budget would be directed in that direction?

Hon. B. Barlee: The total is about $350,000: about $150,000 from our ministry and about $200,000 from Advanced Education. From that we're realizing a number of areas. When we look at the evaluation, our wholesale value is expected to reach somewhere close to $3 million by 1993, virtually from ground zero in 1990.

R. Chisholm: Okay; on to aquaculture. What has this ministry done to improve communications among aquaculturists and other resource users to ensure they're working in harmony? There has been conflict in the past, and I wonder if you have done anything along the lines of assisting them with communications and with knowledge.

Hon. B. Barlee: The minister's advisory council keeps us up-to-date on most of these issues, and of course representatives on the advisory council are in the fishing industry.

[ Page 7450 ]

R. Chisholm: Is that council disseminating information out to the various farms and organizations involved in this aquaculture? We seem to have a lot of conflict among environmentalists, the fisheries itself, the aquaculturists and some scientists and other organizations. If we had these lines of communications, I think a lot of our problems in this area would be solved.

Hon. B. Barlee: With the exception of isolated cases, there hasn't been a great deal of difficulty among the various groups. Where there is, we're trying to make sure that that information is getting out through my own ministry. We have people scattered all the way through the various parts of Vancouver Island and up-coast. We also have various committees struck. And we are encouraging the various aspects of the ministry, whether the oyster people or the clams or whatever it is, to get the information out to their individual groups. Generally speaking they're doing this. There are always some problems in this area. We acknowledge that there are certain problems, but nothing insurmountable.

R. Chisholm: The next couple of questions are going to come from the report Aquaculture: British Columbia's Future -- An Industry Assessment. They came up with a couple of suggestions, and I've wondered if they've been acted upon. The report mentioned, for instance, an inconsistency in national inspection and testing standards for diseases, which hampers access to international markets. Is the ministry currently working on any means by which to improve the standards and consistency, which are safeguards for consumers but which also can ensure access to export markets?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, this falls under the mandate of the federal government. We have an MOU with the federal government in this relatively recent emphasis on aquaculture.

[4:00]

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, we seem to be running into this problem of MOUs and what not. This report still makes a suggestion, and it says you have a problem in that area. I'm asking this minister whether his ministry has done anything about it. If you look at the report I'm referring to, it quotes the aquaculture industry in British Columbia, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods and the B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association, and so on. It is a provincial document. I'm wondering if we have done any constructive work in that area. After all, the report was partially funded by the provincial government and the industry. Have you acted on that?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've made some progress in that area. We have expended a significant amount of money on hiring a new vet in Courtenay to service that area. That's an example. Of course, that was an industry document; it wasn't a document by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So we have a fish health veterinarian who assists private veterinarians in fish-farm diseases and farmed-salmon diseases, and so on.

R. Chisholm: This report made some more suggestions and, like I said, the ministry's name is on it; it helped to publish it. The report states that the production costs are high, affecting competitiveness in this industry. It suggested that new technologies would improve efficiency in reproduction, inventory, feeding, and disease control. We know we've had problems with disease control. Is the minister considering any programs or tax incentives to spur an influx of technology?

Hon. B. Barlee: We contributed about $50,000 last year toward the improvement of this area. It's two years of a five-year cash program.

R. Chisholm: Just what did we do with the $50,000? Throwing money at the problem isn't the solution. What was the solution we were buying with the $50,000?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that industry thinks this program is worthwhile, because we put in $50,000 and they put in $150,000. I don't think they'd be throwing $150,000 into this program unless they had assessed it fairly adequately. I assume it was assessed fairly adequately. I stated several minutes ago that we have made significant efforts in that area. Hiring a veterinarian in this specific area is a significant expense for the ministry, and I think it's a step in the right direction. Certainly we think that industry itself appreciates it, because they have contributed rather generously to a program to which we contributed only 25 percent.

R. Chisholm: Is there a name for this program that hasn't been mentioned yet? And is there anything the minister can do to address the complaint -- this isn't the complaint from this particular report -- that there's a lack of production in marketing coordination among aquaculture farmers? This is a general complaint that I've been hearing from the different aquaculturists in the province.

Hon. B. Barlee: The CASH program -- I believe the member asked for the actual name of it -- was cooperative assessment of salmon health. We feel that is part of industry responsibility. Various groups within industry can send in proposals to our Buy B.C program. If they pass the criteria, we will fund up to 50 percent. Eventually -- probably in five years -- industry is going to take over the full funding of this particular proposal. That's the way it should go. Industry does make a profit from these areas. Generally speaking, they are doing quite well. We think we have an initial investment to make, but that initial investment will go down; over five years, 100 percent of the funding will be carried by industry.

R. Chisholm: As the official opposition has noted since the government took power, the licensing of aquaculture farms has been contradictory to NDP 

[ Page 7451 ]

election policy. The report also states that licensing requirements need improvement. Why did the minister issue new licences when his party promised a moratorium? Does the government plan on issuing more new licences this year, or will there be a moratorium on this industry? How is the licence assignment going to improve, as the report suggests it should?

Hon. B. Barlee: When we came into power, the industry had been stabilized after a slight downturn. It's now growing again -- the minister's advisory council stated that. I'm inclined to take rather seriously an expression from that rather significant body that there was no need for a moratorium. After examining it rather closely, we decided that the advice from the advisory council was quite accurate.

R. Chisholm: You may not think there is a need for a moratorium, hon. minister, but at one time, obviously your party did. That was promise number 34. I have documentation here from various scientists around the province and other organizations that feel we are threatening the natural species of this province and this moratorium should have been passed and should still be passed. Now we are making mistakes that are going to affect the wild species of this province, and we will not be able to correct the problems.

Since you have taken office, you have given out exactly seven brand-new licences and reinstated 26 of the old licences. Unfortunately, we still do not have the ground rules for what we should be doing so as not to destroy or affect the natural species of this province. These people are looking for an answer. Are you going to have this moratorium or, at least, abide by the previous laws that you and the previous government enacted? Then at least we'd slow down this problem of what we're doing to our natural environment.

Since you say there won't be a moratorium, will you at least look at the regulations that were in place? You don't seem to be abiding by them at this present time.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we are abiding by the laws. Secondly, we take the advice of experts on the minister's advisory council quite seriously. We are constantly monitoring. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon that are raised on the fish farms in British Columbia, only several hundred have escaped. They have had no impact; we are monitoring this and DFO is also. It does not seem likely that the crossing of Pacific and Atlantic salmon will occur, and certainly the scientists at DFO agree with us on that. So we are monitoring these impacts continually, and if there were a need for a moratorium, we would establish or call for one. But most people who are in the business and who are working in that area from day to day -- including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- agree that a moratorium is not necessary.

R. Chisholm: For some strange reason, we don't seem to need a moratorium now, but 18 months ago we did; for some strange reason, we weren't listening to DFO 18 months ago, but we are now. I find this a bit bewildering, especially when I take into account that landlocked fish farms are producing one pound of fish for one and a half pounds of pellets, yet fish farms at the mouths of rivers and streams in the migratory patterns of the natural salmon are only taking one pound of pellets and getting one pound of fish out -- in other words, the young wild salmon eat all the feed. Somewhere along the line we have got to come to grips with this problem and realize that we have to address it, not run away from it.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we can put this to bed. The Gillespie report of l986 examined this question very closely. That was followed by the ombudsman -- and certainly the ombudsman can be considered an unbiased observer -- in 1988, and he came to the conclusion that a moratorium was not needed. In my own advisory council, we have representatives from the wild fishery, the fishers' union, the Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, the first nations and from virtually all the groups that are concerned about fisheries. They agree that at this time a moratorium is not needed.

R. Chisholm: We'll get onto this subject a bit later, and I'll give you some of the facts and letters from various scientists around British Columbia who disagree with your point of view. We'll go on to a couple of other things.

I gather the minister is satisfied with the introduction of Atlantic salmon into the west coast ecosystem. How many licences do we have at this present time for Atlantic salmon in British Columbia, either in the salt water or fresh water?

Hon. B. Barlee: Out of the 121 fish farms, just about half are Atlantic, and there are two cage farms on various lakes in Vancouver Island.

R. Chisholm: What lakes are we using now?

Hon. B. Barlee: The two lakes are Georgie and Lois, one of the male species and the other the female.

R. Chisholm: Is the minister contemplating recognizing aquaculture as a form of agriculture in order to bring it under the wing of advocacy in government policy? There is a good case to be made for consistency in this area.

Hon. B. Barlee: The name of the ministry is Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Food covers both aspects, so certainly it does belong in the ministry generally.

R. Chisholm: Like I said, I will submit a bit of information for the minister if he hasn't got it. They might have sent it to the wrong ministry, I'm not sure.

[4:15]

This comes from an Alexandra Morton. I don't know if you've heard this name or not. She makes a lengthy case for what is wrong with the aquaculture industry and what we have to do or what areas we have to look into to try to clean up the act. She states:

[ Page 7452 ]

"I made a lengthy case, based on events in other countries, for protecting the waterways leading into Kingcome and Tribune in the name of allowing wild salmon fish-farm-free access to their natal streams, a practice that Norway -- one of the original fish-farming nations -- has adopted. High densities of salmon farms on major migration routes close to inlets have proven to be disastrous in Ireland and Norway."

This goes on to say:

"Do you know that this spring the oolichan runs were severely depressed, the feeder chinooks almost non-existent, and what fish have been caught are mostly hatchery fish, and the prawns are scarce? Fish farmers told us oolichan larvae were so heavily predated by their fish that they quit eating pellets while the larvae were present."

She goes on to prove what I am saying myself: the fish-farm salmon are eating everything in their path. Unfortunately, that is going to ensure that the wild stock is going to decline in numbers, as we've seen in the last number of years. We're not even talking about the problems of antibiotics and all the rest of it. We'll get into that later. I would like to hear what you have to say to alleviate this person's problems in the area.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have several research papers on the lady who is concerned about it. First of all, she runs what she calls Raincoast Research, and she's concerned about the whales. Indeed, I have some sympathy for her. She has a bias, of course. I think the member was referring to oolichan, which is also called the oilfish.

She states in her case that she said that the acoustic devices which are deployed at salmon farms to repel seals -- and there are only six acoustic devices in all of the 120 salmon farms across British Columbia -- may be affecting whale behaviour -- not that it is affecting whale behaviour. I think she is concerned. It appears that the devices are not harming the seal population but are driving them away. Seal can eat several hundred fish by taking a bite out of each one in one day. I happen to know because a close friend of mine works on a fish farm. She has a concern.

Out of the 16,000 fishers in British Columbia, we probably have 16,000 different, specific concerns. She is certainly one of them. This device is not used in many areas in British Columbia; we're using it very exclusively. We are following international research on this. It's used in Europe and also in Chile. We are aware of her concerns. We don't see any indication that it's harming the whales in this area. I don't think she can prove that in the case that she lays down, either.

R. Chisholm: Somehow, I don't think that we were talking about whales and seals and devices. I was talking about pellets and salmon and what's happening to the migratory pattern of the salmon, and things of that nature. If you want to talk about devices, we can get into that too; but that was not the question. I would appreciate it if you would answer the first question, which was about the problem of them eating everything in their path -- and I'm talking about salmon, not whales and not seals.

Hon. B. Barlee: I thought he was more concerned with the researcher who was concerned about sounding devices.

First of all, we have tracked all the routes of the salmon, and where there are spawning routes, there are no fish farms. We don't allow them in that area.

R. Chisholm: The B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association printed a fact sheet, and it said, under federal and provincial regulations and policy guidelines, that fish farms may not be located "within three kilometres of an existing fish farm, within one kilometre of a park, near sensitive fish habitats -- i.e., herring spawning, rearing, food supply or migration areas -- or within areas identified by the coastal resource identification studies as no-opportunity areas for finfish aquaculture."

All of these guidelines, once considered important, have been violated in most of these areas. There are fish farms right now at the mouths of rivers, streams, inlets and outlets. We have to get control over this situation, because those are the migratory patterns that he and I are talking about.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like to be able to give an answer to that. These standards are still followed, but I don't think the hon. member understands that this does not fall under the aegis of my ministry; it falls under Environment, Lands and Parks. We do not license those, and they are still following, as far as we know, the standards that have been laid down previously and watching very closely the siting of the various farms.

R. Chisholm: I think this will probably be good reading material for that industry. We'll have to send it on to them and see what they have to say, and maybe you'll get an influx of mail from them.

Will the minister consider mandatory labelling of farmed fish to disclose information that it may contain antibiotics and pesticides for the health and safety of chemical-sensitive individuals? Or is this the responsibility of the Ministry of Health?

Hon. B. Barlee: This falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Health; it does not fall under our mandate. Blind tests, by the way, have indicated that people simply can't tell the difference between farmed salmon and wild salmon; it's virtually impossible.

R. Chisholm: If we're into Pepsi tests and what not, that's another thing. I'm not talking about blind tests; I'm talking about what's in the fish itself: the antibiotics and chemicals and what they're doing to the human species. Whether fish taste the same, better or indifferent because it has some chemical in it was not the question; it was what it does to the human species. Is there information going back and forth from the Ministry of Health to your ministry as to the dangers, how much should be used or what should not be used in the fisheries?

Hon. B. Barlee: All farmed fish are regularly monitored and tested for residues. This is standard procedure.

[ Page 7453 ]

R. Chisholm: Tested by whom? Will it be on the product labelling of the fish that the consumer is buying -- whether it be in this province or outside this province?

Hon. B. Barlee: We have some of the finest scientists in the world at Sidney in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is a federal agency. They do the testing, and other scientists from other parts of the world come to examine their methods of testing.

R. Chisholm: Will we see the results of that testing on labelling of fish coming out of fish farms? Is there something ongoing? Will it happen in the near future? Could I finally have an answer to the question, please?

Hon. B. Barlee: They really don't have to label them, because they haven't found any residues.

R. Chisholm: Considering that we are feeding these fish antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and fish pellets, there are chemicals, pesticides and herbicides in these fish. You cannot say to me that there is nothing left in that fish once we have processed it, put it inside a bag and sent it out to the consumer. My question is: will there be laws to force the aquaculture industry or the processor to ensure that the chemicals and pesticides in those fish are recorded and that the consumer knows what he is eating?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are strict guidelines for all food products, whether they are aquaculture, fisheries or farm products, that allow minute particles of residue from pesticides and so on. They have not detected any above those stringent rules in these fish. Therefore it would not be within their jurisdiction to label them because they don't have to be labeled.

R. Chisholm: There is a mention of a lack of diligent use of enforcement regarding the lease of Crown lands. Does this minister have any involvement in this, or are we going to blame the Ministry of Environment for it? Are you going to improve the enforcement regulations to resolve this issue?

The Chair: Hon. member, perhaps you would like to be more specific about what area of Crown land use you are referring to. It sounds more like a topic for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, we are talking about the tenure system the hon. minister was talking about earlier on in this debate, before you sat in the chair. There is a problem with it. Is this ministry going to take care of the problem, or is it the Ministry of Environment? I just want an answer as to where these people go.

Hon. B. Barlee: It doesn't fall under our jurisdiction. I can give you the details of it: in 1991, 25 tenures were inspected and 13 were non-diligent; in l992, 59 of 184 tenures were inspected and found to be non-diligent; follow-up action in l992 resulted in five being brought into compliance. Ten of these tenures were cancelled and 11 additional cancellation recommendations are being processed by B.C. Lands. This falls under Crown lands, but this is the state of these various tenures at this particular time.

R. Chisholm: The final question, hon. minister. What ministry is going to take care of that -- the Ministry of Environment?

The Chair: Could the member please restate his question?

R. Chisholm: Through you to the minister, which ministry is responsible for these Crown lands you are talking about?

Hon. B. Barlee: Crown lands revokes these tenures if they are found not to be in compliance, and Crown lands is under the Ministry of Environment.

R. Chisholm: Since the monitoring of aquaculture operations is under provincial operations, what is the process used by this ministry to check that there are no observable effect levels in fish at the time that they are purchased?

Hon. B. Barlee: I just referred to this about six or seven minutes ago. That still falls under the Ministry of Health.

R. Chisholm: I have to begin to wonder whether this ministry or the Ministry of Health should be in charge of the fisheries. It doesn't seem that they are responsible for anything, especially when it comes down to what goes out to the consumer. I think somebody in this government should have the responsibility, and there should be lines of communication back and forth so that both ministries know what is going on. And if I find it somewhat confusing, I'm darned sure that the general public finds it confusing. Hon. minister, the question to you is: are there ongoing negotiations or discussions on amalgamating all these inconsistencies? Are there at least lines of communication, so that when members of the general public make inquiries, they will get answers instead being stonewalled? These questions are basically the same types of questions that the public is asking your ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment, and they are not getting answers -- whether we are talking about estimates or about the general public making inquiries of this government.

[4:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: I answered part of that question some time ago. Both the 1986 Gillespie report and the 1988 ombudsman's report examined the particular area that the member is talking about. We have come up with a memorandum of understanding which, if the member will reach over about two feet to his right, gives an idea of the memorandum of understanding, that we sent to the minister. It's signed, if the member will look at the back, by three different authorities: for Canada, the 

[ Page 7454 ]

Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; for British Columbia, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the Deputy Minister of Health. It's the right way to go. It was judged to be right way to go by two significant and very expensive reports, so we think it probably is the right way to go.

R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for the report and for being so efficient. We'll have to look at this, and we'll get to further questions in a minute.

In the meantime, I have a few more questions. Just a couple of years ago it was suggested that when fish farms are placed in high-density areas, the level of fish stocks decreases. Is the minister aware of this, and are there now regulations that prohibit the dense location of fish farms?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, I alluded to this very briefly. We have siting requirements that require three kilometres between sites, so that they have ample flushing abilities. I think these have indicated to the operators whether or not an area is adequate. For instance, a number of our sites have moved away from the Sunshine Coast and are now farther up the Inside Passage. These are found to be better partly because of water temperatures and partly because they're farther away from populations, and so on. So I think the siting requirements are adequate. Three kilometres is about 1.8 miles, and that has been adjudged to be sufficient.

R. Chisholm: Have regulations been enacted to ensure that these things happen? That was the question. If not, why not?

Hon. B. Barlee: It isn't a regulation; it's a policy guideline, and these guidelines are adhered to very closely.

R. Chisholm: Has the minister considered regulating fish-farm locations to approximately ten kilometres offshore? It would seem that in so doing many problems associated with pollution and disease created by shallow water would be eliminated.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member may be a little confused. Technology doesn't allow them to go out that far.

Secondly, the minister's advisory council has examined this question very closely. The council is composed of individuals who are extremely well acquainted with aquaculture. They have said that this system works well.

R. Chisholm: It seems to me that they're using the type of system that I'm referring to in Europe, so the technology must be somewhere. The thing I'm getting at here is that we are putting fish farms at the end of fjords and in these calm waters close to shore, and we have all this effluent being dumped from a fish farm into the bottom of the lagoons, and that type of thing. It is destroying the natural species and the shellfish in that area. If we took the farms further out into the ocean, the natural current would flush these effluents out to sea, and we would be much better taken care of than having them right along our shoreline.

Hon. B. Barlee: We are researching that continually, and I believe the situation in Europe is on a pilot-project basis; it is not widespread. We have a number of universities and individuals working on the disposal, and one of them, of course, is the University of British Columbia.

The Chair: Shall the vote pass?

R. Chisholm: Quick on the gun, aren't we? It's not quite ready to be passed, believe me.

This fish farming has been going on for a number of years. It's not exactly new. They ran into problems in Europe many years ago, and the farms have gone out to sea. It might be worthwhile for us to look at that. But over a year ago the provincial government gave land adjacent to Morison Creek on the Englishman River to land developers. What did the government receive in return and what was the comparative advantage of doing this when there is a question about the conservation of the coho spawning grounds?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm sorry. I'd like to be able to answer for Crown lands, but it's difficult. This does not fall under my aegis or mandate at all.

R. Chisholm: We've had a few fish farms being quarantined due to viruses, disease or whatever, and I wonder what this ministry is doing to ensure that this situation is arrested and cleared up. Because there is some discussion that the virus can be transmitted to the wild stock, what happens to these fish that develop it?

Hon. B. Barlee: We can't think of any fish farm that has been quarantined. Sometimes diseased stock is taken out of various farms if it has been checked and found wanting in certain areas, but I can't think of a farm offhand that has been quarantined. I may be wrong.

R. Chisholm: I'll have to read you a bit of an article from the UFAWU. They're angry about a potentially deadly viral disease that's been detected in an Atlantic salmon farm in Okisollo Channel off Sonora Island. B.C. Packers owns the fish farm, and it has been put under quarantine, but the fish may be kept in pens at the ocean site until harvested. Many salmon farmers are moving to raise Atlantics because they grow faster and are easier to manage than coho and chinook, and they go on to say: "We're extremely angry at getting the runaround from the bureaucracy in trying to get information on this," Brown said -- this is the individual who is talking. The virus IHN has been known to occur in wild sockeye stocks, and it can spread from the farmed Atlantics to wild stocks. It seems that this is the same type of runaround we're getting here.

Hon. B. Barlee: IHN is a ubiquitous disease, and it's common to all stock, whether it's farm stock or wild 

[ Page 7455 ]

stock. It's something like marine anemia. It's not unusual; it's like the common cold.

R. Chisholm: That really doesn't answer the questions that I asked. If this is like the common cold, I wonder why this organization is calling it the deadly virus? I'm wondering why the 30,000 salmon were destroyed. I'm wondering why you had the quarantine in the fish farms in the first place. If this thing is so benign and cannot harm anything, why do we go to all these problems? Why are we worried about the Atlantic salmon affecting our natural species if this is not a problem? I know about IHN. I know about the article and can quote it some more if you want, hon. minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: We're going at cross-purposes. IHN is endemic in coho, a species found off the west coast of British Columbia. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has some of the finest scientists in the world, is not overly concerned.

R. Chisholm: You and DFO may not be concerned, but the industry is. What can you tell the industry that's going to make them believe they don't have a problem? What can you tell the industry about how the Atlantic salmon is going to affect the Pacific salmon? How can you give confidence to the general public that importing Atlantic salmon is not going to affect our Pacific species? This is a very valuable industry, and I'm for this industry. The problem is that we have to do things right and know exactly where we're going. It can be very dangerous when we start meddling into the natural species, because we're just liable to lose it.

The Chair: Hon. member, I appreciate that you're trying to hook the minister, but I would appreciate it if you would speak through the Chair.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll try not to rise to the bait.

First of all, I think the hon. member should know that this question was brought forward by the fishermen's union. The ex-president of the fishermen's union, who had been there for decades, is Jack Nichol. I talked with him again this morning. Jack Nichol is on my advisory council. If this were a problem, Jack Nichol certainly would have buttonholed me and said: "Bill, this is a problem." He has not done this. He's extremely knowledgable about the fishing industry. So here's the individual who's been president of the union for decades, he's on my advisory council, and he's never said a word about it.

An Hon. Member: Maybe he figures it's not worthwhile.

R. Chisholm: No, I won't say that. I'll refrain.

You may have people on this council, hon. minister. But obviously there is some misapprehension or misinformation out there. Maybe it would be worthwhile if someone from the ministry wrote a few articles to put into the press, to alleviate the general concern in the public. Maybe this is all that's needed if there is no problem.

But if there is a problem, or an idea that we could get into a problem here, maybe we should be looking a little harder at it. Maybe we should be starting to crawl before we walk and walk before we run. Maybe we're starting to do exactly what the former government did. They ran into this industry very quickly, and it basically collapsed. The minister has the option now of taking it a little slower and having this industry become the shining star we so wish it to be. Maybe we should look a bit closer at what we're doing and take it a little slower. Possibly educating the public would help.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I should talk about the shining star. We put a little over $7 million into aquaculture and fisheries every year. We get back for that over $800 million. That's more than 100 to 1. No fisheries department in Canada gets back the return we do for the amount of money we put in. Newfoundland puts in something like $20-odd million and gets back $600 million. We get much more than any other ministry in Canada. There's just no comparison.

We have to fall back on people in the industry who are knowledgable about those specific areas. Our fisheries officers and experts up the coast are knowledgable, but we do use advisory councils. The advisory councils are one method of flagging issues of concern to industry in general. That advisory council has about 16 members, if I remember correctly. I meet with them, and there is always a representative of my ministry there -- usually my ADM Stuart Culbertson or another representative of the fisheries part of my ministry. It works quite well.

[4:45]

This industry is not expanding like it did in the eighties. Of course, there was a drop-off after that. It's a new industry, and we think it's producing significant potential for the coastal communities. It's an area of gradual growth. We monitor it extremely well. There has been a historical difference of opinion between the union, which likes the wild fish -- and indeed they should -- and the individuals who are growing fish on the farms. So there is a difference of opinion there, and we recognize that. But both of these groups are represented on my council.

R. Chisholm: Now that we've looked at this MOU of yours, on page 4 the agreement says: "The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will monitor aquaculture activities at farm sites with respect to the use and control of therapeutic drugs, other chemical agents and sanitation." I'll get back to my original question. You are supposed to be monitoring what is being fed to these fish and what is being used around these fish, and supposedly the Ministry of Health does the testing. Where are the communications back and forth between these two ministries, so that at least what is being used with these fish is on the label when the consumer buys it?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think it is a good method, and I'll tell you why. I think we have to have independent testing -- not necessarily by one body but monitored by other bodies. This is why this works so 

[ Page 7456 ]

well. We look at it, then we pass it on to Health or DFO. If we see that there is something wrong, they examine it specifically to see if there is something wrong. It is much better than having one ministry doing the examination -- the fox who investigates the henhouse. We don't like that, so we go the other route, which has worked extremely well. Virtually everybody agrees.

There are very few exceptions to the rule. You were citing the occasional exception, and we expect that. With 16,000 fishers out there, there is bound to be some disagreement.

R. Chisholm: The final question on that is: are we going to see labels that tell people what chemical content -- pesticides, herbicides or whatever -- is used in the product that the consumer is buying and eating? And who is going to be responsible for that?

Hon. B. Barlee: These fish are constantly monitored and tested. Up at Browns Bay, those fish are kept at a certain temperature that does not go above 32 degrees -- I think that's correct -- and it's maintained at that. They are packed in ice and shipped off to San Francisco, Los Angeles or wherever. Our fish have had no problems. It is a booming business; it does extremely well. Our system of monitoring is more than adequate; it's among the best in the world.

If you examine the American system.... In fact, there was a report out from Washington, D.C. last year. I carried it around in my wallet for a long time. Twenty percent of their fish are contaminated, and their words in this report were "with filth." We have the best rules in the world, so it doesn't require much more scrutiny than we've given it already. We've spent 20 minutes on this. We can't find any instances of people being poisoned by fish. We have had no cracker-box problems in British Columbia with fish or any other product so far. This is a food product, and it goes through some of the strictest standards in the world. It's known; that's why we're doing well offshore. We are able to invade markets that our competitors now hold because we can't take the chance of making a mistake. That's why we have a three-monitor system.

R. Chisholm: There has been some concern about the possible interaction between wild and cultured stocks. We do not fully understand where we are going with this. Are there any ongoing studies? And at what stage are these studies? I'm not just talking salmon, because we are now branching out into other areas of concern, such as manilla clams, scallops and arctic char.

Hon. B. Barlee: I could read pages on it, but I'll try to restrict myself to three close paragraphs. These are the paragraphs and the background on this: at present the dominant concerns pertaining to salmon farming include disease, genetics and ecological impacts. In addition, reduced environmental quality and direct predation of captive salmon are proposed to have impacts on wild fish. The suggested impacts have been reviewed again and are described in the document to be jointly released by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). The document also presents an action plan to understand and resolve these concerns. The document is called Farm-Wild Fish Interaction.

Since 1988, my ministry has conducted, funded or participated in 13 studies or research projects in order to manage salmon farming effectively with respect to wild fisheries. We've gone through 13 studies since 1988. That's two or three studies every year. So we're tracking it extremely closely and monitoring it well. This year, we are supporting six more projects. MAFF is also actively collaborating and communicating with the international research community to understand how to manage salmon effectively from the fisheries perspective. So we're cooperating with a number of other ministries, we're cooperating with DFO, we've had 13 studies since 1988 and we have six more studies this year. I don't think we can do much more.

R. Chisholm: That's why we ask these questions, hon. minister, to find out exactly what's going on. You may be doing the studies, but you're not publicizing them very well. People would like to know exactly where it stands. If you take a look at this study done by the industry, you won't see anything in there about it. Where are your studies for the general public?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

R. Chisholm: So maybe we're back to this education subject that I was talking about, and maybe it's time for us to publicize exactly what we're doing with this industry. There would be a lot less misapprehension and a lot less fear, and maybe people would be far more receptive to it, if these studies -- or at least some of the details -- were made public.

On the next question, the culture of several new species, both marine and freshwater, is under way in British Columbia, with most in very early stages of development. Can you tell me exactly what we're studying, and what we're looking at for fish farms in the future?

Hon. B. Barlee: We're concentrating on several areas: different types of clams and scallops are two examples. On the first question at the top of the hon. member's statement: are these studies available? Yes, they are. All people have to do is phone up our ministry, and a study will be sent out to them covering probably the topic of their interest.

R. Chisholm: A couple of years ago the provincial government did a land swap giving certain developers title to land adjacent to Morison Creek, which is a primary coho-spawning tributary of the Englishman River. Why did the province make a land swap? What were the details behind this deal?

Hon. B. Barlee: The member just asked me that question in a roundabout way about 18 minutes ago, and I said at the time that that does not fall under my jurisdiction. It falls under the jurisdiction of 

[ Page 7457 ]

Environment and Lands, so I cannot give you the details of a policy that falls under that particular ministry and not my own.

K. Jones: I'd like to follow up on the memorandum of understanding that has been established between Canada and British Columbia on the coordination of fish inspection programs. It's between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Health. In this agreement, there is a series of roles and cooperations that are laid out here: "The parties will implement complementary fish inspection programs. They will monitor and enforce fish inspection regulations and fisheries regulations as prescribed in the respective federal and provincial acts and regulations." Could the minister tell us what coordination they have with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to shellfish monitoring and compliance on the east coast of Vancouver Island?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the MOU is self-explanatory. We have three significant meetings with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans every year. We also have meetings sometimes weekly and, occasionally, if a problem arises, we have meetings daily. So we are keeping good track of it, and we have gone over it extremely well.

The member was asking about some of our research efforts. Some of them are: "Atlantic Salmon Studies"; "Potential for Hybridization of Atlantic Salmon"; "Impact of Caged Fish Preying on Wild Fish"; "Disease Transfer from Farmed to Wild Fish"; "Effect of Salmon Farms on the Bottom Under Fish Cages"; "Effects of Fish Farming on Water Quality"; "Salmon Farms' Role in the Development of Toxic Algal Blooms"; and so on.

K. Jones: Were those last responses relating to the question from my colleague for Chilliwack? I don't recall asking anything about those particular programs.

I would like to go further into the question I did ask. What programs are you specifically coordinating with the DFO in relation to the shellfish on the east coast of Vancouver Island in the areas of compliance to standards and enforcement of fish regulations?

Hon. B. Barlee: If the hon. member will look at No. 3 in the memorandum of understanding, it says that "the Department of Fisheries and Oceans" -- the DFO -- "will coordinate and administer the sanitary shellfish and paralytic shellfish poison-control programs, including the monitoring of federally registered and provincially licensed mollusk processing and packing plants and the analyses of the product." That more or less covers that. This memorandum of understanding, if you will examine it fairly closely, includes the three signatories to the MOU.

K. Jones: That is in the annex section of the memorandum you are referring to. Is that correct? But I'm talking about section 3 of the main body of it, which says that "British Columbia is responsible for the administration of fish inspection programs for those facilities which handle products destined for interprovincial sales; Canada is responsible for the administration of fish inspection programs for imported products and for those facilities which handle products for interprovincial or export sales." That would be between provinces or outside the country.

[5:00]

The memorandum relates directly to enforcement and monitoring of the regulations. My question specifically with regard to shellfish is: what coordination has there been between the ministry and the DFO with regard to shellfish from the east coast of Vancouver Island?

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, hon. Chair, we've already answered this question. You have to refer back to part 3 under the annex, which I read out. I think it's self-explanatory. I don't think it requires a great deal of study to realize that this area is specifically under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There are about 250 plants in British Columbia, and a vast majority of them are inspected by DFO.

K. Jones: The minister doesn't seem to understand the questions or isn't listening. We're talking about specific situations where the minister can identify where his staff and the DFO have worked together on enforcement on the east coast of Vancouver Island -- particularly in the area between Nanaimo and Chemainus -- with regard to shellfish violations.

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that is covered more than adequately in the MOU, but I can give you an example. Last year we did a blitz of the ferries and the various fish packers that were on the ferries. The three signatories of the MOU took part in that: Health, the DFO and my ministry. We checked all the fish going across from Vancouver Island to the mainland. So that's an example of another checking or monitoring situation in which we cooperate with the other two ministries.

A close examination of the MOU would indicate that there is cooperation among these ministries when required. We certainly haven't had any significant problems here because of this cooperation and our continual close contact. We don't phone them up every day, unless we have to. If there is something amiss, then we do phone them. We have regular meetings to go over whether these MOUs are working. Then we have meetings every few weeks, and if a problem arises, we have constant and close contact with the DFO and with the Ministry of Health.

K. Jones: What findings did your sting on the ferries bring about?

Hon. B. Barlee: I don't have the findings at my fingertips, but if anything was amiss it would have hit the papers very quickly. It did not. This was adjudged to be very successful: people were obeying the rules, the fish were packed correctly, and they were in the freezer compartments where they should have been. It's just one of the things we do to monitor the situation.

[ Page 7458 ]

K. Jones: Could I get a clarification? Is the minister talking about checking sports campers and vans and things like that, or were inspections done of commercial or illegal operations? Was there an attempt to identify those people who were operating the transport of shellfish that is taken illegally and dealt with illegally? Was that what the minister was referring to?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question, and it's a reasonable one. We checked to see whether they were licensed and who they were packed by. It was adjudged that there were no bootleg fish -- that is probably what you were referring to. There are, of course, bootleg fish in British Columbia, but this was not the case. They were going under commercial aegis to Vancouver. The result was that it was another monitoring system that worked quite well.

K. Jones: The minister refers to fish all the time. Was this inspection done with the intention of looking only at fish and not at shellfish?

Hon. B. Barlee: That particular inspection actually covered mostly shellfish, not fish.

K. Jones: From what I hear from the minister, the result was that nothing was found; there was nothing amiss, and therefore the program was considered successful.

Is the minister aware that there has been ongoing, illegal harvesting of shellfish on the east coast of the Island, and that the federal Fisheries department seems to disagree with the minister's and the ministry's concept that there is nothing to worry about there? A court case is going on at present, I believe, that is identifying specific illegal practices which the province had absolutely no participation in. That program was done totally by the DFO, and I'm sure they would have appreciated having some support from provincial Fisheries people to make their job a bit easier.

Hon. B. Barlee: Wrong.

K. Jones: The minister is saying: "Wrong." Perhaps the minister could detail specifically where some persons from his ministry were involved in the process that led to that prosecution.

Hon. B. Barlee: If they'd asked us to help them, we would have given them the help. The wild stock is exclusively under control of the DFO. I read the same article. I believe the individual was fined $100 -- that's a standard fine -- and was made to put the product back in the water. That does not fall under our jurisdiction. We will give them help if they so wish. No one contacted us. It is not under our mandate at all. It is under the DFO.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

K. Jones: The minister refers to some case. I'm not familiar with that particular case he's referring to. My understanding is that the case has been put over to be actually heard possibly next week. It wasn't any small operation. I think they're taking out about 160,000 pounds a month, and it's being transported to processing plants for both domestic use and export from the province.

I don't think the minister really knows what's going on in the shellfish fishery -- particularly with reference to the hazardous and illegal taking of shellfish in band areas -- and how the process is actually being done. Could the minister give us as much information as he knows with regard to what actions are being taken to protect the people of British Columbia from clams and other shellfish that are being taken illegally in toxic or polluted areas? What role has his ministry taken in those areas?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, the hon. member stated that this is wild shellfish which is being taken illegally. If it is wild, if it is shellfish, if it is being taken illegally, that falls, again, under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- and it must be working, because the guy is in court.

K. Jones: Actually, the minister stated that it was wild shellfish. I made no reference to the shellfish being wild; I heard him mention it a couple of times, but it wasn't material to what I was asking anyway. My questions specifically asked what his ministry knew about what was going on in the fishery -- and in the shellfish fishery particularly -- on the east coast of Vancouver Island. I get the impression that this ministry really has no knowledge of what's going on or how bad the situation is, and he is obviously not taking any action. Could the minister, if he has more knowledge about this, be more specific?

Hon. B. Barlee: I can't be more specific. If it is a violation -- and, indeed, you are talking about a violation -- this does not belong under the aegis of my ministry. We have certain responsibilities which we share with the DFO. This is not one of them. If DFO requires our help, we will be glad to give it. They did not require our help. They may have stated that in the paper; I don't know. Again, this falls particularly under their mandate, not ours. I would like to give you more information, but I cannot. If it is a violation, it belongs under the DFO.

K. Jones: Under the annex to the memorandum of understanding, the Ministry of Agriculture, section 2, I read: "The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will inspect all vehicles and unloading sites that require buyer licences to ensure compliance with the fish inspection regulations of British Columbia." It says that we're talking about shellfish. Does the minister say that the fish inspection regulations of British Columbia don't cover shellfish?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, the member read that, but he didn't read it all. It says: "The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will inspect all vehicles and unloading sites that require buyer licences to ensure compliance...."

[ Page 7459 ]

K. Jones: I'm completely at odds with the minister and what he is trying to say. He hasn't said anything other than what I actually read out to him. Would he give us an actual answer to the question?

Hon. B. Barlee: All we do is make sure that the product is appropriately labelled.

K. Jones: The minister says that his only responsibility is to see that the product is properly labelled. That means he doesn't have a responsibility for inspecting the vehicles at unloading sites, as in this memorandum. He doesn't have any responsibility to license for the quality of the product or anything like that. Is the minister saying that his only responsibility is to see that the label is correct on it? Does that mean that it's not upside down, or backwards? That's all he really has to do with these? I'm absolutely aghast at that type of response. It's rather flippant, I would think. It certainly is contrary to the memorandum of understanding and shows the minister's lack of knowledge of his ministry.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm amazed at what an expert he's become for an individual who read the memorandum of understanding five minutes ago.

[5:15]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspects vehicles, buyers and plants. Look at No. 8 on the memorandum of understanding. It also says the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will license and inspect fish-buying, vending facilities, sport-caught fish, processing facilities other than canneries and marine plant processing and will license processing plants after an acceptable inspection by either the Ministry of Health or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I've been saying this for probably the last quarter of an hour. I think that's adequately covered. There may have been something we missed, but I don't think there has been.

K. Jones: I'm glad the minister, by reading the memorandum, found out what the responsibilities of his ministry are. It's the first time he knew what they were, obviously, because his previous statement indicated that he had only the responsibility for making sure the labels were the right side up and had nothing to do with the other things that were clearly obvious in the memorandum, which I was quite well aware of, having read it.

I'd like also to ask the minister what the date was of the signing of this memorandum.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think it was probably around 1991. It is not on the back page. But if this was clearly obvious, why did the member ask the question?

K. Jones: The reason I asked the question was that the document given to me was not signed or dated. Therefore I assumed that the document doesn't exist and that it was just something that was printed up and has no basis for agreement whatsoever. The minister doesn't know whether it exists or not. He obviously doesn't know when it was signed, who signed it or anything about it. The minister is taking what he's being told at face value and is trying to read a bunch of statements which he doesn't know are factual.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm really quite astonished, hon. Chair, at the tone of the questioning. We will be delighted to get the member a signed copy. Then he can examine the signed copy and send it off to a graphologist to make sure that each signature is actually legitimate. That may satisfy the hon. member.

However, time progresses, and I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 5:18 p.m.

The Committee met at 6:14 p.m.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)

On vote 14: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).

R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions on the fisheries aspect with regard to our bit of disaster with the Pacific Treaty. How do you foresee us attempting to control the situation so it doesn't get out of hand? Will the province have any jurisdiction in this area, considering these fishermen are British Columbia residents and it's our industry, or is it going to be completely a DFO show? Do you have any contingency plans for what could possibly happen this summer? I'm looking for an overview of the upcoming situation and for what we can expect.

[6:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it's a good question. I should spend a little bit of time on this because it is very important to our long-term strategy. The Pacific Salmon Treaty was established in 1985, and the annexes of that treaty -- about five of the seven, if I remember correctly -- are coming up in 1993. These five impact directly on our salmon stocks. I answered briefly in the House and elaborated this morning when I was talking across the country with the Hon. John Crosbie that the Pacific Salmon Treaty is supposed to be concentrating on the conservation of the stocks.

What has happened historically -- I briefly alluded to that in question period and I think it's very important.... The two best salmon rivers in the world were the Columbia and the Fraser rivers, and historically the Columbia was a better river than the Fraser. It draws from a bigger watershed; it carries a greater volume of water; and what happened on the Columbia was not duplicated in Canada.

The United States went into the Columbia in the twenties and thirties and prior to that, and put several 

[ Page 7460 ]

dozen dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. The result was that dams like the Grand Coulee virtually destroyed the Canadian salmon run. For instance, rivers like the Little Slocan, the Slocan, the Kootenay, the Okanagan, the Similkameen and a number of other Canadian rivers lost all their salmon. This impacted directly on us, and I think it was a lesson to us. So we said this can't happen to our second major river, the Fraser. So we made sure that no dams were built on the Fraser; it is a completely unfettered river.

We have been extremely careful with those industries, at least from Hope up, and we've been exceptionally careful that the industries don't pollute the river. There are some exceptions, but generally it's a pretty clean river. We have forgone all the benefits of hydroelectric development on the Fraser, and instead we put that into the long-term fisheries strategy. We have collectively spent in the last seven or eight years -- mostly federal money -- $200 million to bring up our stocks, and this has worked.

Last year was the top of the four-year cycle. Because of that, we tracked the fish coming up the Fraser and, despite some American intrusions into our stock, we had the highest number of fish come back into the Fraser since 1913. Really, we had a magnificent run. There were problems on it.

What has happened in this treaty.... This requires a significant answer. Excuse me for elaborating on this, hon. Chair, but the hon. member and I want to discuss this. I think it's an important discussion for everyone in British Columbia. What happened was that this treaty worked throughout 1985, '86, '87 and '88. We have three American impacts on the river: Alaska, which doesn't care about Oregon and Washington, two of their sister states; the first nations in Washington State, which are governed essentially by the Boldt decision, and they don't care about Washington, Oregon or Alaska; and the American government, which cares about all three, but can't get the three sides together.

What is happening is that we have significant impact from Alaska on British Columbia salmon that come down the coast and swim into British Columbia, and go up rivers like the Skeena, the Nass and the Stikine. We, on the other hand, have a slight block on the west coast of Vancouver Island. We can intercept American coho. We are also building up our stock on the Fraser River. We've done a superb job -- and I'm not playing politics on this. I will congratulate DFO, which is a federal department. They have done a unique job; probably one of the best in the world. Our stocks are in great shape. The Americans, having been -- well, shall I say, extremely selfish, and I'm being rather generous in that.... If you watched the Hon. John Crosbie and Yves Fortier, who is the chief negotiator for Canada, they could barely restrain themselves this morning when they were talking about this treaty. The Americans, first of all, want us to cut our coho take on the outside of Vancouver Island by 200,000 fish so that their fishermen in the strait of Juan de Fuca on the American side can fish those fish. Last year they took 361,000 extra sockeye -- which is the best sockeye, as the hon. member well knows -- and that's worth about $7 million or $8 million. On top of that, they get an extra $65 million of Canadian fish. But is that enough? No, it isn't enough. They want more. So they want to go into the Fraser River and double their catch -- add 100 percent -- on that run. I must say, the federal government hung tough on this.

We have one negotiator at the main table -- there is a main table and two side tables. Our negotiator from British Columbia is Bill Lefeaux-Valentine. Bill Lefeaux-Valentine knows more about fish than I'll ever know, because he is an expert on them. He is a superb negotiator. It is the first time British Columbia has ever had a negotiator in country-to-country negotiations, and he has added significantly to it because he knows the rivers, he knows the area and he has a marvellous overview.

We offered to cut our fishing on the west coast of Vancouver Island by 200,000 coho. We said: "Okay, we'll be good neighbours." That didn't make any difference at all to the Americans. They brought nothing to the table. They wouldn't cut one fish. It didn't impact on Alaska. They wanted our fish. We have spent years building up the stock -- frankly, it wasn't good enough. In our consultations with the federal government, they said, "What do you think of our strategy?" -- and, of course, Bill Lefeaux-Valentine reports to me very week -- and I said: "Hang tough on it." We did hang tough on it, so that's why these negotiations have broken down.

If you look at the agreements that we've had historically with the Americans, out of about 17 fishing treaties they have broken 15, and the other two didn't count. So although this makes for some difficulties for British Columbia, we have to stand firm on this, because for the Americans too much is never enough. I don't think that's a good-neighbour policy, but they don't happen to care. They want more and more and more fish. If we were to surrender to their demands, we would be facing the same thing in the next fish treaty.

We did get back to the table in a country-to-country negotiation session in Montreal last week. We said that we cannot resolve this -- and we simply cannot. They can't get their three sides together, so we asked: "What can we do?" They said: "We will watch the stock." There are still two annexes of this seven-annex treaty left. One of them, fortunately, impacts on Alaska, so that annex is left in place until next year.

Now, there is always a danger of things falling apart. The negotiations have come to a dead standstill. They are supposed to be picked up again in August of this year. The fishing season probably starts on the 29th of this month up to about July 1, as the member well knows. But that's the situation we are in. It isn't the best of all worlds. We realize this, but it is a position we must adhere to. I must confess that the hon. minister of the federal government, John Crosbie, and I have had some differences, but I commend him heartily on this. He has stood absolutely firm on this. He got the best negotiator in Canada, and we still couldn't make any headway.

That's where the situation is now, and I believe we will be making some impact on this. I think we have to let the American public in the states of Washington and Oregon, who control a great number of electoral votes, 

[ Page 7461 ]

know that this is not only not neighbourly, it is basically unfair.

We are looking for equity. Equity means a natural and fair division of the fish. We have raised most of the fish and have improved the fish stocks. We feel they are entitled to some of those fish, but not all of them. They simply would like all of them. That is basically the situation in the fisheries industry, and that's basically the overview of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Those negotiations are in a holding pattern right now, and will probably be in a holding pattern until sometime in August.

The hon. member asked what contingency plans we have. I listened very closely this morning to Yves Fortier and to Pat Chamut, who is another federal negotiator, and they said they have some plans going into effect. This is governed, essentially, by the federal government. This is still DFO. These are offshore fish. They did bring us into the equation and into the circle -- and indeed we should be there because it does impact on British Columbia. But I will be consulted on their fisheries strategy. I will not lead that strategy because we are not the lead.... This is a country-to-country negotiation. So if I haven't clarified everything for the hon. member, I wish he'd ask. If I have, that's fine.

R. Chisholm: Thank you for the information. We are on the same wavelength in this area, by the way. When the fishing season starts, on the 29th roughly, and the Americans decide to line their boats along the international boundary and lay out the nets, they can basically block the whole area off. The northern run will make it into the Fraser River, but the southern run will not. The only way we're going to be able to conserve it, if the Americans go this route, is by temporarily cutting the quota on our northern route. I'm just wondering what the alternative is. Is the federal government apprising you of what possibilities exist? You're saying that they will consult, but they haven't told you too much as of yet.

We have all these power agreements with the Columbia River. It seems to me when they want to use our water to flush their fry downstream -- and they've destroyed their fisheries, just like you said they have, with all their power dams and whatnot -- they seem to be getting the water. And here we are. The shoe's on the other foot, and we are having the tap turned like this member just said. I just wonder if they've consulted with you about these things, or if they've been discussed to any great length.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. But it's a question that is not under my mandate. The Columbia River Treaty is being negotiated -- very careful negotiations. We are in a fairly good position on that.

As far as the northern runs are concerned, you're probably talking about area 104. The fisheries area is divided into a number of different areas. Area 104, which is between the state of Alaska and British Columbia on the panhandle, is probably the most important area. This annex is still in place -- fortunately for us -- until 1994. So the Americans cannot impact us on this very important annex. We could, if we so wished, impact them dramatically on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I think perhaps we have to bring other things into the equation, and one of the things I would bring into the equation.... Well, take a look at a river like the Tatshenshini. The Tatshenshini is one of the wild rivers that has come under considerable scrutiny in the last few months, because of the possibility of a mine called Windy Craggy there, and the wild river values of the Tatshenshini. The Tatshenshini is really quite a significant salmon river. Those salmon come up the Tatshenshini; they spawn in the Tatshenshini in Canadian waters. The Alaska fishermen get 98 percent of those fish apparently -- I happened to talk to the expert who did all the research on the Tatshenshini some years ago. So we're getting 2 percent.

[6:30]

I think the Americans need a reminder that we are extremely fair-minded. When we look at the history of the boundary conflicts between the United States and Canada, it's absolutely astounding. We lost the boundary dispute in the Alaska panhandle -- we got a fraction of what we should have got. We lost the San Juan Islands dispute -- we got virtually nothing there. We lost the dispute in the Oregon Treaty when we had significant rights down there through the Hudson's Bay Co. We lost the treaty in New Brunswick. We lost the treaty in the Great Lakes, and it goes on and on.

An Hon. Member: And the Grand Banks?

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, we didn't do too badly on the Grand Banks. I studied that, and really we cut the Americans out.

Essentially, in every treaty with the United States, whether it's a land treaty or a fish treaty, we have always given ground. I say: no more giving ground; and the federal government agrees with me on this. I think every member of the opposition agrees as well that this is an extremely important treaty. It's a difficult treaty to resolve, and I don't think it will be resolved this year, despite their meeting in August of this year.

I think I've given you a relatively good background. The federal government is coming up with a hurried strategy, because they hope that these negotiations will work. This strategy will be in place by the opening of the fishing season. It probably won't be a satisfying result for any of us. I don't think you're going to be satisfied; I don't think I'm going to be satisfied; I don't think the federal government is going to be satisfied; nor do I think the Americans will be satisfied. It's a classic stalemate which will probably not be resolved.

R. Chisholm: I'm in full agreement with you on this. We have to play a bit of hardball with this one. If we don't, the future of our species is at stake. If you keep me informed, I'd be most appreciative.

G. Wilson: My remarks are going to be particularly brief, and I hope that the minister might reciprocate, as I have to get back to another debate. If the minister, as a reward for his brevity and directness in response, I will go directly to the heart of my 

[ Page 7462 ]

questions. Failing that, I'll turn him back to the member from Cloverdale.

Having said that, I have some specific questions with respect to the policy on aquaculture, primarily in my riding. As the minister is aware, I have perhaps one of the longest sections of coast in British Columbia in my riding. It extends all the way from the Langdale terminal up to just south of Bella Coola, and there have been many fish farms put in place in that area.

I wonder what the minister's comment is with respect to site location, given that in the initial stages of this industry I was elected at the regional district level and was involved in site location. They were primarily isolated and really didn't impact on commercial fishing. But in the Smith Sound-Smith Inlet area, we now find five applications underway, which are being given serious consideration. Those fall directly in the gill-net range for commercial fishermen and are a direct threat to the gill-net fishery of that area. I wonder if the minister has knowledge of that or wishes to comment on those applications, because they are of grave concern to the fishermen.

Hon. B. Barlee: The sites in that particular area are referred to DFO, as they are all along the coast. If DFO does not accept that proposal or referral, they are turned down. So the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a significant impact on siting virtually all along the coast.

G. Wilson: That's true. The DFO is on the referral process, but it doesn't ultimately grant the licence. It's granted through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, if it's a Crown land licence. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a significant role to play in these licences being granted, as they are a granting agency.

I draw this to the minister's attention, because the members of the union are going to commence a letter-writing campaign to the minister. He is therefore advised in advance that this is on its way. In this instance, they are seriously concerned about the proliferation of fish farms, in terms of the impact on the commercial fishery. As you know, the fish-farming industry is something that has been promoted with some vigour over the last few years, and the commercial industry is concerned that preferential site location may be given that will negatively impact on the gill-net industry. So if the minister could be aware of that and could perhaps issue a comment, I think that would be fine.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's an intelligent question that requires a little bit of elaboration. First of all, to my knowledge we have never overruled DFO. If they had said that this site is not adequate, we never overruled them. Secondly of course, and the member was not here when I mentioned that, this granting comes directly under Crown lands, which is part of the Environment ministry. Thirdly, and I mentioned this before when the member was absent from the main House, we have an individual on my minister's advisory committee who is extremely knowledgeable from that point of view. Jack Nichol was UFAWU president for 20-odd years; he retired last year. He certainly does flag those issues. I will check this with Jack Nichol and see if this is a going concern, because he still has a close connection to that part of the industry about which the member is concerned.

G. Wilson: If we could move, then, to a second area of concern: shellfish harvesting licences immediately north of Powell River in the area of Desolation Sound. It is an area that not only has been a very real part of the aboriginal economy there for many years, but is also a recreational area of some importance from a tourist's perspective. There is concern that the Desolation Sound area is being targeted for expansion of fish farm sites. I wonder if the minister has some comment on that. As far as I was concerned, the water was too shallow and too warm.

Hon. B. Barlee: We are not aware of anything outside of shellfish that may come into the Desolation Sound area. I think that there are problems with that area -- two of which the hon. member mentioned. We don't know of anything that's on the table right now, and we are in fairly close contact with Crown lands on these things. It should have come to our attention. We can check that, and we will be delighted to do so, but I don't think that there are any serious proposals coming out of the Desolation Sound area for fish farms.

G. Wilson: That will be good news for those people who have shellfish operations. The second concern they have articulated to me is with respect to shellfish closures. Once again I understand that we're into the DFO realm. I don't want to push into that except to ask what the ministry is doing, if anything, to assist in the monitoring process and to look at the licensing that may be required with respect to long-line oyster culture that is being developed in that region, particularly in view of the fact that the wild harvest seems to be now under almost permanent closure.

Hon. B. Barlee: I was talking to Pat Chamut this morning, and some of my staff were talking to Pat Chamut just a short while ago about that very concern. If you would drop into my office sometime, I think that we will be able to give you more information on that. We haven't got the reply yet, and I can't give you the reply until we get it from Pat Chamut, but certainly we're looking into that.

G. Wilson: We are moving through these fairly quickly. The next area of concern has to do with the Echo Bay area of the coast and the inlets in the vicinity. I understand that at several isolated fish farms there, a fair amount of treated feed has been used, and direct treatment has been used for BKD disease and other diseases that are impacting the fish. There doesn't seem to be a regular monitoring program or any kind of inspection program to regulate or monitor the application of antibiotics in the fish farms. I know that this was a problem along the southern portions of the coast. I realize that there is a prohibition on the 

[ Page 7463 ]

application of these kinds of antibiotics prior to harvest, but my question to the minister is: to what extent is he engaged in a licensed program of inspection with respect to those fish farms? Do we actually have officers doing routine inspection on those areas?

Hon. B. Barlee: To set the member's mind at ease, our own staff have checked Echo Bay twice in the last two weeks, so we are monitoring the situation very closely.

G. Wilson: I guess you must have known that I was coming, or maybe I gave myself too much credit -- or maybe it's my constituents, who are keenly on your case, which is their wont. I can assure you that they are often on the case of their elected representative.

The next issue concerns size and the restrictions that were put in place in terms of aquaculture guidelines. The size of those net pens seems to be expanding, and we are moving toward ever-increasing sizes in fish farms. Have the regulations been changed recently? If so, what are the new regulations with respect to the size of fish farms?

Hon. B. Barlee: I've been on a number of fish farms since 1991, and to my knowledge they haven't changed at all. If there is a change, and I don't think there is, we will let you know about it. But I certainly don't see any dramatic change; there may have been a slight change. I don't think the law has changed, but we are quite prepared to look into that.

G. Wilson: I will wait with anticipation for this flood of material that's going to be coming back in response to these questions.

The next question has to do with the Atlantic salmon program. I know there's a lot of scientific evidence now, on two sides of this argument, as to whether we should or shouldn't be involved in the Atlantic salmon program. It is my understanding that by regulation there can be no importation of Atlantic salmon. Rather, we have brood stock in British Columbia, and the only Atlantic salmon in the province that can be harvested are those raised from an egg program that is domestic -- i.e., British Columbia -- in nature. Can the minister confirm that that's true? If you can confirm it's true, then I'll move in a different direction.

Hon. B. Barlee: There is no import of live fish or smolts. There is import of eggs from an acceptable checked source in the United States, or Europe for that matter.

G. Wilson: So we are actively engaged in the importation of salmon eggs. That's news to me. I thought we had a policy that we were not importing Atlantic salmon eggs. I'm assuming, then, that when these eggs you say are from an acceptable source are coming, the standards for inspection would be in place. Perhaps the minister could outline what those standards are, and whether or not subsequent inspections take place when those eggs arrive in the province, either prior to or through the incubation process.

[6:45]

Hon. B. Barlee: A very small fraction of eggs are coming in, and these are really monitored very closely under federal standards by DFO. They inspect them very closely. We've had no problem so far.

G. Wilson: I'm a bit unclear. They are inspected when they get to British Columbia, by DFO inspection officers presumably. What assurances do we have? My assumption is that they would have come out of Atlantic Canada, if they're coming from abroad. What assurances do we have that the eggs in fact go through a thorough inspection process there?

Hon. B. Barlee: A number of these come. Some of them come from the States; many come from Scotland and Ireland and acceptable sources that DFO monitors. A quarantine is also in effect. So it's a pretty rigorous process, and so far it has not failed us. I don't think it will. If it did fail us it would impact dramatically on the farm salmon industry.

G. Wilson: I think the more salient point is that if it failed us it would not only impact on the farming industry, it would presumably have a devastating impact on the west coast fishing industry, if you believe some of the research. There are increasing reports, I am told by commercial fishermen in both the gill-net and seine industries, of a catchment of Atlantics that have escaped from a farm. Certainly if you read the Fisherman there are often articles in there. I come from a community of fishers, and frequently there are reports of catching escaped fish. Can the minister tell us what kind of monitoring program there is with respect to catching escaped Atlantics, and whether or not he believes that -- in a rather fragile ecosystem in western Canada -- we should be trying to raise a fish that is not indigenous to our coast?

Hon. B. Barlee: It's part of the interaction between wild and farm fish. We have a study going on that now. Out of the literally millions of farm fish in British Columbia -- and I say that without exaggeration -- several hundred have escaped, according to DFO. There's no proof at all -- technically or otherwise -- of a natural alliance between Atlantic and Pacific salmon, so breeding between the two stocks would be very unlikely. They haven't found any evidence of that at all.

G. Wilson: The capacity of the species to breed is only one part of the argument. It brings to mind -- perhaps by way of a slight digression -- that I snuck out last night to see Jurassic Park, and they told us that dinosaurs couldn't breed either, albeit that's fiction. Nevertheless, we often find that there is much truth in fiction.

It isn't just the fact that they can breed -- we're talking about salmon now; we've dispensed with the comment on dinosaurs, although in a building such as this it's often tempting -- but that if we have 

[ Page 7464 ]

escapement and we find that these Atlantics are able to thrive and succeed, there's the question of competition, especially in narrow, sheltered estuaries.

Similarly, we often find that the fish farms are located in an estuary where escapement of Atlantic salmon or even indigenous salmon may occur when many fry are coming downriver and going out to sea. The farm fish don't go very far from these estuaries and, as a result, may feed on wild stock that are en route to the sea. It has been a concern, in terms of location of fish farms, to make sure that we don't locate the fish farms in areas adjacent or close to active spawning channels.

So I wonder if the minister could answer the second part of my question. Does the minister believe it's a wise idea to raise in net pens for commercial purposes a fish that is not indigenous to the coast of British Columbia? I understand that we go to Atlantics because of their greater handling.... I understand all about the biology of the fish, recognizing that this fish is not the same species. But does the minister think it's a wise idea?

Hon. B. Barlee: The siting requirements state that we must not site a fish farm close to a spawning route or a migration route. We simply must not do it. I would find that interesting. If that is the case, we will certainly follow it up.

G. Wilson: I note that the minister is avoiding the question as to whether or not he thinks it's wise. I won't press him on that. Obviously he must, because they're here. I'll just take the fact that we're doing it with his blessing to mean that he thinks it's wise.

But I know that concerns have been stated with respect to fry. I don't know whether those have been corrected or not. I'd be happy to forward some information. This is not a prevalent problem, but there are instances of problems where location has caused some concern.

If I could come to two other questions with respect to this ministry, then I'll hand back the debate to the critic. We have a difficulty in our community on the lower Sunshine Coast. We have a serious concern with respect to Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers who are regularly inspecting fish habitat, commercial and sport fishing practices, and many involvements that relate to the aquaculture industry. I am fully aware that the lack of Department of Fisheries officers is a problem that the federal government has created, and I understand that this minister has no authority with respect to that and limited clout with the federal minister. But a serious issue is arising on the Sunshine Coast, which I bring to the minister's attention. I will use the opportunity of these estimates. I've spoken informally with the minister before. It has to do with the connection of the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the development of the fishing industry in the communities around the Sunshine Coast.

There is a proposal -- albeit we have not seen it documented in writing and yet it seems to be common knowledge -- that the fisheries officer from the Pender Harbour area will be transferred to work with the Sechelt Indian band. I don't think that is a problem, except that the officer who is assigned to the Sechelt Indian band is directly involved with the aboriginal fisheries strategy. I'm fully aware, Mr. Chairman, that I am treading into a federal jurisdiction at this point.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries also needs to be aware, to the extent that they are involved at all with the saltwater fishery -- and in large measure that is primarily, I would guess, in the licensing and inspection of aquaculture. I think it is extremely important that this ministry take a very aggressive and very active role in making sure that Fisheries officers remain in Pender Harbour, and that the required number of inspectors are there.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member is aware that there is some downsizing of Fisheries officers on the west coast, and this does indeed fall under the auspices of DFO, as the member is also aware. However, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I met with a delegation from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and they brought up some of these concerns this year. We are monitoring that situation. We cannot, nor do we, tell the federal government where to move their Fisheries officers. So we're aware of the situation, but our impact upon the decisions made in Ottawa, in this case, would be less than peripheral.

R. Chisholm: Diverging a bit, have there been indications that the aboriginal treaties are going to affect aquaculture? Are aboriginals showing any interest in this? Is this ministry assisting them to get into this industry? Have any economic impact studies been concluded, let's say, on the aboriginals getting into the aquaculture industry and fisheries? What's going to happen to fisheries and aquaculture in the future?

Hon. B. Barlee: Before supper, I listed ten areas that we were interested in. There are several more I should mention. The Kitasoo band has a fish farm, and the Alliance Tribal Council is interested in some clam culture, so we -- along with Aboriginal Affairs -- will be assisting both of those. Part of that falls into our jurisdiction in cooperation with Aboriginal Affairs, and, of course, the federal government has some impact as well.

R. Chisholm: Is your ministry doing any impact studies on how they are going to affect these industries? Is this ministry putting any finances up front to help these bands get into the aquaculture industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: We do not provide actual cash to them. We will provide information, training, mapping and various services that they require to set up a viable operation.

L. Stephens: I would like to ask a few questions about the aboriginal fisheries strategy, acknowledging that it is a federal initiative. I would like to know what role the provincial ministry has in that strategy, and where the negotiations are with the province at this point.

[ Page 7465 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a good question. I covered part of this before. We are concerned, really, with the four Cs. The major one of those four Cs -- which we have indicated to the federal government -- is conservation of the stock. That is extremely important. Consultation -- with everyone, including the aboriginal or first nations, the third parties, the province of British Columbia and Aboriginal Affairs. Compensation, where that is required. In some cases, there will be a buy-out, and the federal government has put X number of millions of dollars aside for a buy-out of those third parties who wish to get out of the business. Finally, we think there should be certainty in the fishing area, and in some respects that has not been carried through.

[7:00]

The hon. member did acknowledge that this is fundamentally a project driven by the federal government in consultation with Aboriginal Affairs in the province of British Columbia. We have a small role in it, in that we have buying stations, and we have four officers who will be on the Fraser this year.

L. Stephens: Could you explain "buying stations" for me?

Hon. B. Barlee: I don't think the hon. member was here when I touched on this before. When the fish leaves the water, it leaves the federal jurisdiction and becomes provincial jurisdiction. That is where the buying stations come in, and then we monitor what the catch is, and so on.

L. Stephens: Could you explain it further, please? When it comes out of the water, from the fisherman it goes to a plant....

An Hon. Member: A buying station.

L. Stephens: Buying station. I thought when it came out of the water, it was a buying station. Could you explain it a little further?

Hon. B. Barlee: On the designed AFS, for instance, which is the aboriginal fisheries strategy on the Fraser, we will have seven buying stations. Some of us will be up there; I'm going there sometime during the fishing season to see how things are working out. The federal government will certainly be monitoring it much more closely than they were last year. I think their fisheries officers are split between 50 percent aboriginal peoples or first nations and 50 percent occidentals.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

L. Stephens: And the minister will be assisting in this? How much of a presence does the ministry have? How involved is the ministry in this monitoring process?

Hon. B. Barlee: We license and inspect the facilities to see that they meet the required standards, so we have a small role -- a relatively important one -- but most of this role is carried on by either the aboriginal peoples or the DFO itself, which governs it.

L. Stephens: One of the Cs you mentioned was consultation with third parties and aboriginal peoples, and so forth. Could you tell the committee if there are advisory groups -- I think you mentioned at one point you have an advisory committee -- and whether or not they include third-party interests, aboriginals and whoever else might be involved?

Hon. B. Barlee: Both other parts of this equation have their own advisory committee. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal department, has one. We have access to that. And of course Aboriginal Affairs has one. We also have access to that and representatives on that. So it is kind of a tripartite arrangement.

L. Stephens: But your ministry does not have a separate advisory organization?

Hon. B. Barlee: No, this does not fall under our jurisdiction. We have a part in that, but that belongs more properly under the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

L. Stephens: On compensation, you mentioned a federal buy-out plan. Could you elaborate a little more on that?

Hon. B. Barlee: That is a federal program. I can give you some very brief information on it. I think I mentioned before that there is presently $7 million in the pot to buy out some fishing licences that belonged to the third parties. Fair market value -- whatever value they arrive at at that particular juncture -- will be offered to those individuals who wish to get out of the fishing industry.

L. Stephens: Does your ministry do any socio-economic studies, particularly on the Fraser, in relation to the fishing impacts on natives and the non-native commercial fishery?

Hon. B. Barlee: This initiative has been carried by the federal government. They have numerous studies. We could probably get their latest study for you. We don't carry that particular initiative; it does not belong, truly, under our mandate.

L. Stephens: In your estimates here, under Fisheries and Food, it says: "...the development of policies and programs with respect to aboriginal issues." Could you tell me what your ministry does, then, in relation to policies and programs with respect to aboriginal issues?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is a mixed jurisdiction, and our participation in the aboriginal issues is really devoted to three or four different areas. One is joint stewardship; one is training; one is information; one is meeting with and finding out what the problems are with the third parties -- and of course, they come to us, as they go to the federal government. Again, the 

[ Page 7466 ]

majority of this initiative is carried by the federal government. We have some input into it in those areas.

L. Stephens: The federal aboriginal strategy aside, what provincial programs and policies has your ministry initiated in the aboriginal fisheries issue?

Hon. B. Barlee: Basically, that is, again, in the area of joint stewardship. To give you an idea, we put about $275,000 into joint stewardship in '92-93 -- that was last year. What it does is come up with some cooperative management initiatives, which they may or may not be aware of or familiar with. There is also extensive consultation with the various nations that are interested in this.

Another thing we tend to give money to is coastwide economic modelling, and that is probably something you are rather interested in. The ministry assesses the potential impact of treaty settlements on commercial fishing and processing industries. So I think this is closer to the mark than the first answer I gave you. I did mention when you were not here, hon. member, that we have about $241,000 in ten different proposals inland and along the coast. I won't read them again, but it will be in Hansard. Those programs range from $49,968 down to $2,850 and cut across a number of Indian nations. We haven't the terrific economic impact that DFO has, partly because they are essentially responsible for the treaties not being signed in British Columbia. So only part of this falls under our aegis.

L. Stephens: My final question has to do with the Alcan Kemano project. There has been a lot of discussion over the impact on the fisheries of this initiative. I wonder if the minister could give me his view on that particular proposal in regard to fisheries, and what he feels the impact of that proposal would be for British Columbia and the fisheries industry.

Hon. B. Barlee: This process is being led by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. We're aware of the impact on the Nechako River. Of course, the Kemano project does impact on the Nechako River. This initiative, unfortunately, was completed behind closed doors some years ago, before we came to power, and we were more or less presented with a fait accompli. Again, there has been a process of overviewing that project, which was carried out by Murray Rankin, and this process is essentially complete now. It was a very difficult process, as the member can well imagine, in that we inherited something that was less than comfortable.

P. Ramsey: I thought I'd enter into this debate and say a few words on behalf of the agriculture community in the Prince George area, and perhaps pose a couple of questions. As the minister knows, agriculture in the Prince George area tends to focus on the cattle business and on cow-calf operations, with a supporting activity of growing feed. One of the great concerns of cattlemen in the area has been the loss of support from Agriculture Canada. As the minister knows, the people who used to be at the agricultural research station adjacent to the Prince George airport are but a memory. They were originally relocated to Kamloops, and cattlemen in the Prince George area were asked to contact Kamloops for support for their operations and research and assistance. The latest correspondence seems to indicate that Agriculture Canada is now asking cattlemen in the Prince George area to talk to people stationed in Lethbridge, Alberta. I know the minister has written to the federal Minister of Agriculture on this issue, attempting to get better support from Agriculture Canada for cattlemen in the Prince George area. I wonder if he has any hope of success in that area and what else he has been able to discuss with his federal counterpart to get the assistance of Agriculture Canada for those cattlemen.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a difficult problem -- not only in fisheries, as I was alluding to earlier. The federal government is downsizing their agriculture and fisheries staff in western Canada. We have written to the new minister -- it used to be Bill McKnight and now it's Charles Mayer -- and we will be writing him again. Fortunately, we have maintained our staff in this area.

If I may take the liberty of saying this, the last time I went to Prince George to address the cattlemen, there were 52 cattlemen in the area and 154 turned out for the meeting. And it was a great meeting. I think they know that I'm carrying the flag for them. It was really quite marvellous; I enjoyed every minute of it.

P. Ramsey: I've had the same feedback, hon. minister, on your visit to Prince George and your meeting with the Cattlemen's Association. I thought it was a very productive meeting.

One of the issues they raised, which I thought I should put on the record for the committee here, was their problem with environmental regulations regarding burning. The expansion of agriculture in the Prince George area still depends largely on land clearing. That expansion and land clearing results in a large amount of woody debris that has to be disposed of one way or another. Earlier this year, we had a set of draft regulations regarding burning of woody debris which seemed designed more for dealing with grass clippings in Surrey than for the results of land clearing in the central interior. It proposed a variety of things, such as trying to mulch -- which would be very hard to do with several hectares full of aspen and stumps. It was a marvellous policy and obviously worked well for some areas of the province. It obviously was not appropriate for land-clearing agricultural operations in the central interior, and those regulations have now been relaxed. I want to commend the minister for his support of the agricultural community and the cattlemen, in supporting their efforts to get burning regulations that made more sense.

[7:15]

I was going to ask, though: as we go into the next year and look at testing this whole process, could the minister inform the committee of actions his ministry will be taking to ensure that we do have burning regulations that respect the needs of land-clearing 

[ Page 7467 ]

operations for agriculture -- particularly in the central interior?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are negotiating with the Ministry of Environment right now on the code of practice. Of course, there will be significant consultation with the industry, which means the cattlemen who are affected in Prince George and the high interior. As the member noted, the original burning regulation has been "relaxed" -- I think the word is probably very appropriate. We assume that when this code of practice finally evolves next year, it will be quite satisfactory to the cattle industry. We have representatives there, of course, and we are in close consultation.

P. Ramsey: On a slightly different issue, the member opposite raised the issue of the Kemano project and its effect on agriculture. Some agriculturalists west of Prince George -- upstream from Prince George -- have substantial operations. One of the concerns they express is the effect of declining water levels on their ability to draw water for feeding livestock and irrigating agricultural land. They also express the general concern about the effect of that on lowering the overall water table. I was wondering -- and I simply don't know the answer to this -- whether your ministry has done any research into the effect of lowered water level on the availability of water for irrigation, and on the overall water table, in the agricultural areas that depend on the Nechako River.

Hon. B. Barlee: The Nechako-Kemano process is difficult. As I mentioned to one of the members opposite, this was essentially a study led by the Ministry of Environment, and we have had ongoing discussions with that ministry to lessen the impact. There is certainly no doubt that the lowering of the Nechako is going to have a negative impact upon the farmers in the area, and we are working with Environment to ensure that that does not happen. I've had personal conversations with a number of the farmers adjacent to the river on both sides. It is not an easy problem to solve, and I won't say it is. I think we may be able to resolve the most difficult part of the impact.

P. Ramsey: My perceptions fit with yours. I've actually been fortunate to have canoed the length of the remaining Nechako. As you go through some of the really marvellous ranchland -- particularly on the upper level; Hobson's old ranch and others there -- you can only imagine what it must have been like when that river was running full, as opposed to where it is now at 30 percent of original flows and where it will be after Kemano 2 at 12 percent of original flows. One cannot help but think that there will be an effect on the adjacent agricultural land in terms of its productivity and its usefulness for agriculture. But that, I guess, is for the commission to try to figure out, and they'll be drawing on a variety of sources of research.

The last thing I wanted to raise concerns the state of agriculture in the Peace River area to the north of my riding. As the minister is well aware, the grain farmers there had a really rough time of it last year. Drought reduced yields, and I don't know if they were historic lows, but they were very low and created some severe difficulty. I wonder if the minister has any information on prospects for crops in the Peace in the coming year, what the current forecasts are for productivity in that area, and what plans the ministry is putting in place to meet any difficulties that may result this year.

Hon. B. Barlee: In the 280 areas of interest in agriculture -- which is really quite staggering -- we probably have seven areas that we have to watch extremely closely; I call them areas of concern. Definitely one of those at the top of the list is the Peace River country, which was impacted dramatically by two severe droughts, last year and the year before. Our tracking and monitoring have indicated that the drought this year is much less severe; in fact, they've had a reasonable amount of water in certain parts of the Peace. It does not mean they are in good shape as far as the ground is concerned, but we think it's better this year.

To that end, we have adopted what we think is a long-term strategy for the Peace River country. We put in extra staff in the Peace River district and a $500,000 grant so that the individuals up there could design a strategy which they think fits that particular area of British Columbia. It is indeed an important farming area, and generally it has been the breadbasket of the province in that it has had oilseeds and grains and so on. We are looking at a different direction. We also gave $77,000 for field trials, and so we have $577,000 in there.

There are some new directions to go in the Peace River district. Some of the farmers up there have diversified. They have gone into bison -- or buffalo, if you prefer that term, which is not technically correct -- and into backgrounding of cattle. We have the Sparks study, which was actually paid for by my ministry to the tune of $200,000. Of all the areas in British Columbia and the high interior, the one area that stands out as the best area for backgrounding cattle is the Peace River district.

We are also doing some trials to see which types of grains grow well in that area. As it is a shorter growing season, we are working on the fescues -- and we are working with other ministries as well. Some of the farmers are doing some individual work themselves. We find that those farmers who have adopted zero till are much better off. Their crops are about double what they would be with the ordinary tilling methods. Although this is a difficult area and we do have droughts in there -- and I mentioned this yesterday to one of the members from the Peace River district -- we think our long-range strategy is much better than the ad hoc proposals that came down from the previous governments.

P. Ramsey: I just want to thank the minister for that. It has been fun to get up here and speak in estimates -- we on the government side do it too little, I think.

Just on the Peace River to finish off, I know that sometimes the people up there feel that they are a long way from Victoria. I know that the minister has been up 

[ Page 7468 ]

to visit them -- and I'm sure he'll be up there again this year. I will be going up there myself at the beginning of next month and will be reassuring them and talking to them about the initiatives that we are taking. It is also good to hear that the weather may be slightly better this year. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for a profitable crop in the Peace country.

Hon. B. Barlee: One comment, if the member will allow me some liberty. He mentioned the low water levels in Nechako Canyon. I was doing some historical research a while ago, and it is really quite dramatic: in the Nechako, where there is now this much water, they actually had sternwheelers which went right up the river with no problem at all. That will never happen again -- we know that. It's a river essentially in decline. Unfortunately, this is an inheritance we didn't want.

The Chair: I want to thank the minister for not taking credit for the improved weather.

R. Chisholm: We have a couple more questions and that will be the end of things that have scales and fins, and we get on to horns and hoofs after that. These questions might not be in your jurisdiction, but you may have some input as to what we are doing and what we are not doing. One would be about the Fraser River plan, and the so-called Green Plan that the federal government is putting down. Did you have any input into this? They are going to spend $100 million, and supposedly they are going to enhance the fisheries and the fish population of the river. Were you consulted on this plan, or is this strictly outside your jurisdiction?

Hon. B. Barlee: The Green Plan is a long-range strategy by the federal government, and we concur with it generally -- there is not much doubt about that. There is an agricultural component in the federal Green Plan, and our share of that is about $800,000 this year. To look over that very closely, we have formed an advisory committee, and we are concentrating on two areas: soil conservation and water conservation. We will be glad to give the hon. member any other information on that that he requires. I don't think there's much else there, but the total for that is about $12.1 million over five years, with the first impact this year being $800,000.

R. Chisholm: Is any money allotted to the fisheries itself, or the enhancement of the fisheries, out of this Green Plan?

Hon. B. Barlee: Basically, the majority of that money would go into agricultural pursuits such as water conservation, soil conservation, and so on. Some of that money has not been specifically allocated -- we think it's going in these directions -- so if a very interesting and formidable application were made on the fisheries side, that would probably be considered. But again, remember that that funding is coming from the federal government, and they have a significant say in where it goes.

[7:30]

R. Chisholm: Along with the federal government, does this ministry get involved in trying to educate other countries and other fishermen to not use filament driftnets, for instance, which are a great disaster to our fisheries? Is this strictly a federal jurisdiction?

Hon. B. Barlee: If the hon. member recalls, probably in late 1991 or early 1992 I went to Ottawa and focused the federal government's attention on the problem with the driftnet fisheries all across the world, including those in the north Atlantic. We put out a publication called "Urgent Voices." We essentially led the charge, and the result was a UN resolution banning driftnet fishing. Essentially we drew into the net -- you'll excuse the pun -- a number of countries that were not interested in coming in, including Japan and various other countries that had been using driftnet fishing to the significant disadvantage of not only the fish stocks, but other wild stocks in the ocean.

R. Chisholm: Thank you for the answers, hon. minister -- or the lack of answers I got in the fisheries segment of the estimates.

In reference to the Pacific treaty and what I said earlier, I hope that you are very forceful in this issue. It is one that could be a real disaster for this province, and I certainly hope that you don't drop the ball -- or at least that you go to the final end. If you lose the battle, so be it, but don't drop the ball in the meantime.

Now on to agriculture, and I would like to start off in the free trade and NAFTA area of it. As you know, we do have the odd little problem in this area, too. Agriculture is the third-largest resource industry in British Columbia. The largest component of that is dairy farming, yet our international trade agreements are hurting our dairy industry. The minister admitted this himself in 1990 when he said, in Hansard of July 23, 1990:

"Here's how the dairy industry is doing since the inception of the free trade agreement: it is estimated that as much as $72 million annually is lost to the dairy industry. That's $1.5 million a week. What they said is this: the lost income to British Columbia dairymen and the lost jobs at processing plants are an extremely serious concern to the industry. And indeed they are."

I agree with the minister. The lost income and lost jobs are very serious. The question to the minister is: how does this minister plan to protect our farmers in the future from free trade and NAFTA?

Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the member does not know that in my one trip overseas, I led the Canadian delegation into Switzerland, and we attacked the Dunkel report. Dunkel was the individual in charge of bringing out some proposals from the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The GATT has one area under which we are vulnerable, called XI.2(c), which is an area that, if it is strengthened and clarified, can protect our supply management system. Our supply management system so far has not been impacted, except for -- significantly -- cross-border shopping, which is costing us about $1.7 billion a year, about $5 million every day. NAFTA has not had an immediate effect on it.

[ Page 7469 ]

In Geneva with me was the chair of the B.C. Milk Board, a man named Arne Mykle. He was there, and negotiated with me. We negotiated with virtually all the countries we felt were onside. I was rather fortunate in that I knew the Canadian Ambassador to Switzerland, who is an old friend of mine. In fact, I didn't recognize Gerry until I walked into the room and he said: "Bill, how are you?" I hadn't seen him for about 15 years. He fought a very good fight for Canada.

We are outnumbered on the GATT, unfortunately, about 107 to 2, which means the odds are rather daunting. We are holding firm on article XI.2(c) of the GATT. If it is fast-tracked by the Americans under President Clinton and his agricultural adviser, we will be in significant difficulty. I think both of us acknowledge this. We hope that does not happen. Evidently they put it off until well on into the fall of this year. It was going to be fast-tracked, first of all, early in 1992, and then again early in 1993. Now it is probably going on almost to the end of 1993.

The free trade agreement, of course, has not been beneficial to Canada, and nor -- I remind the member -- do we think NAFTA will be, either.

R. Chisholm: What the Americans didn't get under the free trade agreement, they want under the GATT. What they don't get under the GATT, they want under the free trade agreement. What they don't get out of the North American free trade agreement, the GATT or the Canadian-American free trade agreement, they will get by countervailing if they can, or harassment at the border, or any other unethical method that they think is possible.

What steps has the minister taken to prepare for the conclusion of the GATT talks? What about a repeat of last year's cross-border dumping of produce? Have we speeded up our system? Is Revenue Canada going to react to the province and to the farmers? Just exactly where are we in these negotiations, and what could possibly happen to us under anti-dumping this year versus last year with the lettuce and cabbage?

Hon. B. Barlee: The member quoted me absolutely correctly. I think the Americans are fine people. I do not, however, think they are very good neighbours sometimes, especially trading neighbours. We found that out under the free trade agreement. The 425,000 people who lost their jobs would probably attest to that.

As far as the GATT is concerned, we stated previously that we led the charge and that we focused the federal government's attention on the GATT. In fact, I was the only minister from an NDP government who was allowed to speak to the Conservative agricultural caucus. I did indeed, and much to my great amazement, they agreed with me. I spoke to the federal Liberal agricultural caucus. Not so much to my amazement, they also agreed. I also spoke to the NDP federal caucus, and they were unified that our approach to the GATT situation was accurate.

I find the member's remarks about the NAFTA rather interesting in that his party voted unanimously to accept the NAFTA, whereas other nations such as the United States, which was the main driver, have had very serious second thoughts. In fact, if I may quote somebody else who is not my favourite person, Ross Perot said that if you hear a great sucking sound, that's the sound of jobs going south into Mexico. At 871/2 cents an hour, we may have some difficulty keeping jobs in Canada.

We are preparing for an eventuality in the GATT. We don't think it is on the immediate horizon, as I stated previously. We hope that the NAFTA will not come about. I think it impacts dramatically on parts of the agricultural industry; other parts will not be affected. Generally speaking, when we sign a trade agreement with our great neighbour to the south, they don't sign it unless they're doing exceptionally well. It always makes me a little uneasy when I hear them say, "Gosh, Canadians are great negotiators," which they said after we signed the free trade agreement. We have to be very vigilant, and I think we are. We have some long-term strategies, but if we do lose the GATT round, it will have a dramatic effect on some parts of our industry. There's not much doubt about that at all.

R. Chisholm: Yes, I quoted you correctly. I find that sometimes that is a very good way of getting an answer, and other times, not so good. But you didn't answer the cross-border dumping question, and that segment is very important to what we saw transpire last year. So if you could elaborate on that....

As far as the federal party is concerned, all Liberals are not necessarily in agreement. We're in agreement as free-traders, but we don't necessarily agree with that particular deal. Anyway, in the meantime, if you could comment on the cross-border dumping of produce and what we're going to do to ensure it does not happen this year, that would be most appreciated.

Hon. B. Barlee: When we went back last year and negotiated with all the ministers of agriculture and the federal Minister of Agriculture, including the Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, we pointed out that some of the federal processes were not working as well as they should. We pointed out that the dumping was impacting British Columbia. They agreed, and they expedited a process that was beneficial to British Columbia. This, of course, falls directly under the aegis of the federal government. We can ask them, and indeed we do whenever there's any impact -- whether it's strawberries or lettuce from California, and so on -- and we've had some success in that area. The fallback process doesn't work, and we know that. I think the federal government knows it as well. But we think we've made some impact in that area. It is a process that goes on. The cross-border dumping is not going to end tomorrow.

R. Chisholm: The Americans are singling out supply management as the strongest part of our agricultural system. "We feel that it's important for us not to accept or adopt the fallback position at this particular time." Now that we're getting closer to the time when we might have to do something about GATT, or GATT will conclude, do we have a fallback position, 

[ Page 7470 ]

or do we know what effects this would have on our agriculture sector? Are plans being put into place to enable us to at least react to a situation if it's forced upon us?

Hon. B. Barlee: We made it very clear over a year ago that we were not going to entertain a fallback position. We said that XI.2(c), which is the critical part of that agreement, impacts dramatically and directly on the industry; and we do not have a contingency plan similar to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We think that we should defend our position, which is indeed a reasonable one. We do not produce all the extra food, all the surpluses around the world, because we have a supply management system which allows us to have the second-lowest price of food per capita income in the world. So we defend that position.

R. Chisholm: The beef industry is concerned that the national tripartite stabilization program may need to be phased out due to the threatened trade action from the United States. What progress has the minister made in searching for alternatives that provide an industry safety net and still have our production market-neutral, to satisfy GATT subsidy criteria -- i.e., they cannot be priced-based and can have only minimal distorting effects on production and trade?

Hon. B. Barlee: There is certainly no doubt that the cattle industry in British Columbia and the rest of Canada has been targeted by what I call pervasive countervailing. The United States has done that very effectively. They have lost every countervail they have laid on the cattlemen, but it still means that our cattlemen lose. The American government pays the entire cost of the lawyers when the Americans countervail us, but our industry has to pick up the cost even if they win -- and we have won every time. But they don't want to face this continually, so they said that we must get rid of the NTS plan, because NTS is countervailable under the GATT and under the free trade agreement. So they are looking for another option. We've had ongoing consultation with the cattle industry in British Columbia. The federal government has ongoing consultations with the cattle industry across Canada, the CCA, and they will be presenting those options in about 20 days' time. I'll be at a meeting back east, if these estimates ever finish.

[7:45]

R. Chisholm: If the minister would answer a few of our questions instead of going around in circles, we would probably be finished very quickly.

We have a problem -- for instance, with NAFTA -- with the absence of subsidies, and the anti-dumping code too. What I need to know is what your thoughts are, hon. minister, on tariffication and how that would affect our industries -- under GATT.

Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member was referring to tariffication under the GATT, not under the NAFTA. Tariffication under the GATT means a slow decline in tariff walls which would come down over an ensuing period. Of course, as I stated before, it would have a significant and negative impact on our supply management system.

R. Chisholm: Do you support the tariffication under GATT? That initial statement on the NAFTA was just a clarification of an early question. Do you support tariffication or are you against it? The GATT may change the structure under which our agriculture policy operates, so it may impact us significantly in the supply management area. What effects have the GATT talks produced, and what changes are planned or anticipated in the future? And then, what are your personal thoughts on whether you back tariffication or not?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll reiterate our position. We unequivocally support article XI.2(c) under the GATT. We think it should be strengthened and clarified, which I stated several minutes ago. We also do not support tariffication. That is the beginning of the slippery slope.

J. Beattie: Hon. Chair, it's a pleasure for me to address the minister on these Agriculture estimates. Of course, the minister knows, being from the Okanagan, that agriculture plays a major role in the economy of the Okanagan and is an important part of the ambience of the area, as the minister likes to say. I've heard him say very often that the ambience of the Okanagan is so much dictated by the agricultural industry.

In the Okanagan, as the minister knows, we have a thriving tree fruit industry, a growing grape and wine industry and a vegetable industry which is starting to come alive in certain parts of the Okanagan. We have a cattle industry, and we have a fair amount of processing beginning to develop. I think that processing is the future for the products of the Okanagan. I think the minister recognizes that with price fluctuations in world markets, it's important in the fruit and other agricultural industries to do secondary processing.

I would like to canvass a number of issues with the minister this evening. I would like to start off with the tree fruit industry and address the new developments that are taking place in the orchard industry, particularly in the apple sector with the new plantings and the revitalization program that the minister has been very strongly supportive of. I wonder if the minister could address the question of extension services and the types of services his ministry will provide to orchardists who are making the big step into the 1990s and the twentieth century with new types of planting.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's an extensive subject, of course, and the basic part of the revitalization strategy is carried by the ministry. Some of that is carried by the OVTFA -- about $329,000, I believe. That means that we're concentrating on farm management, new species, revitalization, technical problems, and so on. I might add that the state of Washington, which has a tree fruit industry about ten times as large as ours -- 100 million boxes to approximately 7.5 million or 8 million on average -- recognizes that our staff in the Kelowna area 

[ Page 7471 ]

and throughout the Okanagan are really top of the mark. We get a number of Americans visiting us, and that's quite a compliment from our competitors.

J. Beattie: The minister comments on the quality of the agricultural staff in the Okanagan. Having worked for three years with the ministry, I can say that he is accurate in his assessment.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the relationship his ministry and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority have with the federal research station in Summerland, and how the three are linking together to provide services for the Okanagan.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly the member and I are both familiar with the research station in Summerland. We used to call it the experimental farm. They don't allow that anymore; it's called the research station. Many individuals who were there 20 years ago are old friends of mine. Some of them have retired; some are still there. We have a very close relationship with the individuals in that station. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is directly housed on one of the floors -- in fact, the major part of that floor -- right in the research station.

I think I can safely say that the research station has done extremely admirable work in the tree fruit industry. They have come up with new varieties, techniques and knowledge, and some of them are indeed among the best in the world. Our relationship with the tree fruit industry has been very close, and beneficial to both sides. We have come up with some remarkable new varieties, for instance, that they're always experimenting with, and quite often they make the mark. Of course, the old varieties such as Red and Golden Delicious are still grown significantly in the Okanagan. We have new varieties starting to take their place. We fall back on the expertise of the research station in Summerland and their scientists -- and fortunately, we are closely allied with them, not only physically but in other respects.

J. Beattie: I'd like to ask the minister to define, if he could, the role of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority in his approach to the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan. I'm particularly aware of the fact that the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority has assumed some important responsibilities for revitalization. I'd like to hear from the minister how he sees the long-term efforts of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, and if he could give me some indication about other areas the authority may move into.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's hard to know where to start there. As most people know, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is a separate Crown under my aegis. We think it is the right tool to lead the revitalization of the tree fruit industry. They engage in mapping, research, analysis, coordination and the delivery of various new programs.

We think the overall impact of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is very important, because in the Okanagan Valley there has been a great deal of pressure on agricultural land reserve lands. For instance, the other day in Kelowna eight acres sold for $1 million. That's pretty significant in the Okanagan. That in turn puts pressure on the agricultural land reserve. We feel the only way to keep the agricultural land reserve free from the intrusions of -- I won't say developers, I'll say land speculators -- is to make sure there's a healthy tree fruit industry. To do that we must revitalize the industry, which I think we are doing, slowly. It takes awhile for the orchardists to change their traditional practices, and we're aware of that. But we think we are making some progress.

When I visit the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority headquarters, I'm quite impressed by some of the long-term research being done, and by some of the long-term strategy -- particularly the mapping, which gives us a leading edge over our neighbours. Of course, that all folds into other initiatives in the Okanagan Valley, such as the sealed insect release facility in Osoyoos, which is probably the best in the world. That will impact dramatically on the sprays we are presently using. According to some of the research scientists, the sprays will essentially be done away with in five years, which will give us a considerable leg up on our opposition in the United States and in Europe.

J. Beattie: I wonder if the minister could give me some idea of the time line for the existence of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. I know that in the beginning there was a specific mandate, and a perceived observation that at a certain point the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority would somehow dissolve, or at least stop doing its current work. Could the minister give me some idea of how his plans are going in that direction?

Hon. B. Barlee: I knew there was a time line on it; I didn't know what it was. After five years there is a review of the original legislation, and the essential end of the OVTFA is the year 2000. So its in about six and half years approximately -- definitely not longer than that. There will be a review prior to that.

J. Beattie: Given that the process of revitalization is less than mathematical, one can't really predict how many acres will be replanted, and there will be people falling into the revitalization of their orchards.... Can the minister speculate as to whether he would consider extending the mandate perhaps into the 2000s and completing the job of revitalization with that organization?

[8:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: I can't give a specific answer on that. It will be evaluated after the fifth year. As for revitalization of the industry, we replanted 598 acres last year, so that's significant. As the member well knows, that varies from year to year. I would think that a very strict analysis after five years, which will be up in two years -- in 1995 -- would indicate exactly whether we have to go the year 2000 or not. I don't entertain going beyond that.

[ Page 7472 ]

J. Beattie: One of the really important things that the minister and his staff have undertaken in the last year is the transformation of the support program on the tree fruit industry -- farm income insurance -- into a new program which is more acceptable from an international perspective. One has to be completely honest and say that growers in the Okanagan recognized that the FII program really didn't do the task of causing progressive development in the tree fruit industry. So I think that it was time for FII to be restructured. The minister has taken on that challenge, and in the long run he has done an important thing. I am wondering if the minister could give us some idea of what the new program is about, and how he feels the growers will accept these changes.

Hon. B. Barlee: The restructuring and, essentially, the elimination of the FII program was not accepted with a great deal of glee by a number of the orchardists, for several reasons. One is that before, when the orchardists had FII -- which is farm income insurance -- they got a cheque at the end of the year, and that's a rather nice present. We didn't think it was going in the right direction for several reasons. In the last 18 years the federal and provincial governments together have put $450 million into the tree fruit industry, but that did not revitalize the tree fruit industry. That $450 million comes out to about $25 million per year. We think that's an extremely important industry. It affects the Okanagan Valley and our protection of the agricultural land reserve. We felt, however, that we had to go in a new and perhaps uncomfortable direction for some of the orchardists. The average orchardist is about 52 years old, so they are reluctant to make changes. Some of them were very critical of the new plan.

However, let me tell you a little story. I've kind of taken the liberty of doing that only twice in these estimates, and now I'll take the liberty a third time. I got a very irate phone call from an old friend of mine, who is politically of another party but supports me in the elections -- I won't tell you his name, because he isn't here.

F. Gingell: They all say that.

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, I manage to survive in that old small-c conservative riding.

"Bill," he said, "I want to get out of the agricultural land reserve. I'm tired of it. I'm 73 years old," which he is. I thought that's unusual, because he has always been a great supporter of the agricultural land reserve. So I jumped in my car and drove 30 miles over to his place. I got in the door, and he was fine. He had just had a small operation that had upset him, so he was not his usual self. So I sat down in the living room. We had something to drink -- Okanagan wine, probably. He had 75 acres divided into five different parcels, and he grew Goldens, Reds and a few Spartans. The hon. member may know who I'm talking about -- or he may not. I said, "Well, I thought you were doing pretty well," and he looked at me and said: "You're darned right I'm doing well." So I jumped in and asked: "How much income tax do you pay -- percentage?" That's all I needed. He said such and such. I said: "You so and so, you made over $200,000 net last year." He said: "I did not. I made $248,600 net." Yet he was not willing to change and wanted to get out of the ALR.

So that's to illustrate a point. A highly intelligent human being was doing exceptionally well with old varieties and working like a dog. Although he hasn't changed, his son is changing. So we are going in this new direction. It won't resolve all the problems. I think the hon. member, who is very familiar with the industry, knows this. But I think it is the right direction to go. I think we will be exonerated in two or three years. Certainly some of our apples that have sold in Japan and other parts of the world sell for $1 -- not a pound but an apple; that's $1 (U.S.) an apple. That's not usual, but it's the trend.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

J. Beattie: The minister has discussed the new directions that this revenue protection program is taking, and I want to commend the minister for the type of work he's been doing in the last month, particularly in setting up consultative avenues for orchardists to get involved in the process, and also for showing flexibility on some of the key issues that the tree fruit industry has brought to him. With that type of input, I think the program that will be structured will meet the needs.

One of the really massive problems the minister may have to address is the registration for programs. Of course, FII was almost like someone taking you by the hand and leading you down the road. We want growers to make that kind of commitment themselves. So I think the hon. minister will have a challenge in that area. I encourage him to find a program that meets those needs. If he wishes to comment on that, I'd be glad to discuss it further.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to talk about the grape and wine industry. The minister is intimately involved with the increasing amount of fine Canadian wine products, particularly in British Columbia, that are circulating around the world now. So he knows that we are becoming very successful as a grape-growing and wine-producing area. I'm wondering if the minister could give us some idea about whether the wine industry is living up to his expectations in terms of its growth, particularly in the context of the pullout a few years ago and the move to the European varieties. I know that a number of acres would have to be planted, in order to really keep the wine industry on its feet.

Hon. B. Barlee: The wine industry is a very important industry for Canada -- not just British Columbia. We have exhibited in some of the world fairs -- for instance, the one in Orange County, California, last fall. In the pinot blanc area, we won four of the eight prizes with worldwide competition. We competed against the best wines from California, Oregon and Washington, and from parts of France, Austria, Italy and so on. We came away with half the prizes. We made a significant hit in London, England, about ten days ago. Again, our pinot blancs literally took them by storm, and we sold thousands and thousands of cases. I 

[ Page 7473 ]

believe the individual who led the charge there was Harry McWatters from Sumac Ridge.

The growth in the industry has been quite staggering -- almost geometric. The industry grew by 36.84 percent last year. They sold 200,000 litres more than they did the year before. The prices have gone up slightly, and the public still accepts them. In fact, when I had a glass of wine tonight, I noticed 21 Okanagan wines on the wine list downstairs. I'm sure some of the individuals at this table have partaken of these very fine wines. Our whites tend to be better than our reds.

The wine industry also impacts on our overall strategy for the Okanagan. A very important part of this strategy is that we have the equivalent of Napa Valley north. I don't like the word "Napa," because it sounds like a car part; I prefer the word Okanagan. The Okanagan Valley is better situated than the Napa, except that they have a great number of people close by in Los Angeles and San Francisco and so on. We have twice as big a wine area as the Napa. Our lakes there are not one puddle, but they are a string of lakes connected by some very beautiful rivers. We run from the high alpine right down to the desert shore.

We attracted something like 152,000 visitors to the wineries last year. We think that number will eventually grow to over a million. Our long-term strategy is to encourage and nurture the wine industry, so it will have a kind of dual economic impact in the Okanagan Valley: we can compete and export worldwide, and also draw individuals in from the United States. Americans are coming in increasing numbers because we got some free publicity -- worth about $75 million -- from the Yeltsin and Clinton meeting in Vancouver, and because it is very safe to travel in Canada. So we will take advantage of that. I think that the Okanagan Valley will benefit, the ALR will benefit and certainly the tourism industry will benefit.

J. Beattie: The minister has touched briefly on an issue that, of course, is near and dear to his heart: the tourism industry, and the link between the Napa Valley of the north -- which may or may not be an appropriate label, but nevertheless does give an image of what's really happening -- and the beauty of the area and its tourism potential.

I would like to get into the question of the end of the marketing board prices for the grapes as they exist, and whether the minister feels any nervousness or trepidation about the import of Washington, Oregon or California grapes. I would like him to put that in the context of VQA. Does he feel that the Canadian wine program is strong enough to preserve the number of acres that are planted? Will the number of acres planted increase because of the VQA program?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that locks in on our long-term vision of what is to happen there. We've had cooperation among the grape growers, the vineyard owners and the wine producers, as well as the commercial producers, the estate wineries and the farm-gate wineries. We want to do two things. We want to encourage them and to bring out a better product. The product is certainly far different than it was ten years ago -- and much better. Our whites are really quite superb. Also, we want to protect those vineyards that are providing the grapes for our industry.

[8:15]

That agreement comes to an end on December 31, 1994 or January 1, 1995 -- pick your date -- so we have to protect that. We've gained back many of these lands. In fact, a French firm just came in the other day and spent $1 million buying a few acres in the south Okanagan. It's an interesting area, because it is peculiarly situated for growing extremely fine white wine grapes. The late Dr. Helmut Becker, who was probably the leading white wine expert in the world, said that the Okanagan had the qualities to produce probably the finest white wine in the world because of the peculiar balance between acids and sugars in the soil, the clarity of the light there, and so on. As he was the expert, I'm not inclined to argue with him. We are trying to make sure that those vineyards stay alive, by picking up that growth in the industry. As I say, we gained 200,000 litres in the estate wines alone last year. As I check the figures from the liquor control board -- and I do every month -- I see that we are growing quite dramatically and almost geometrically. When the end of 1994 rolls around, we will probably have picked up all those lands that were vacated in the great pullout of '88. In the long-term we are in a pretty good position, and we're certainly attracting worldwide attention.

J. Beattie: The minister didn't comment on the VQA program. I wonder if he would tie that into his analysis.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think I can say that the VQA is the most successful program in North America as far as growth is concerned. As I said, it grew by 36.84 percent last year, which is really quite staggering. We don't expect that growth to continue forever; it just couldn't. But certainly, when you look around the world, British Columbia is the greatest area for per capita drinking of wine. Most other areas are level or falling off. In British Columbia there is a slight increase; in VQA wines there is a dramatic increase, so this is the saviour of the wine industry in the Okanagan. I must say that the vintners are very happy with its growth. In fact, they are quite surprised with it even when the prices go up.

J. Beattie: The farm-gate wine industry has also grown quite substantially. These small operations, which are able to sell wine directly out of their small farms, are proving to be quite successful. A few apple growers are growing numerous varieties of the old types of British apples, and two of them have come to me asking if I think it is possible to have cider licences, which would be equivalent to a wine licence. I am wondering if the minister could comment.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have an estate cider winery on Vancouver Island. I forget the name of it, and I should remember it because I was supposed to go there to open it up, and I couldn't get away that day. They use a specialized type of apple. We don't use the ordinary C-grade or less. Of course, the farm-gate wineries are 

[ Page 7474 ]

limited by up to 10,000 gallons per year, and the estate wineries can go up to 20,000 gallons per year. We are looking at increasing those categories, by the way, because of the success of the industry. I would be very cautious in promoting a cider industry in the Okanagan at the present time.

J. Beattie: I would like to talk a bit about the processing industry in the Okanagan. As you know, we have a fairly large juice industry and, at one time, the Okanagan was quite well known for its canning facilities. Over the last number of years, however, there has been a glut of Australian and Taiwanese fruit, and it has caused the demise of the soft fruit industry. I'm not sure whether the soft fruit industry will ever come back. Nonetheless, having those types of processing facilities certainly is a cushion to the vagaries of the fresh market. I know that in Summerland there is a society that is promoting the processing of foods other than fruit. Is the ministry, through its policy, actively promoting the development of processing facilities?

Hon. B. Barlee: This is a very competitive area. We have some real winners in the Okanagan Valley -- Rogers in the Armstrong area, and Sun-Rype. We find that consumer demand is going down in this area, so it's an area we have to be exceptionally careful of. We can provide some expertise, but we do not back them with money. Indeed, I don't think we should, so the processing industry in that particular area -- especially when the hon. member referred to soft fruits -- is problematic. There have been troubles since the old plant in Summerland closed down, and I remember other plants closing down in other parts of the valley. Anyone who entertains going into that business would be extremely well advised to get his or her business plan in shape very quickly, and I would be a little cautious about it.

J. Beattie: The minister is correct that it is a very competitive business. I think that the future, particularly with the small volumes of raw fruit, does lie in developing niche markets -- dried fruits and those types of products, as the minister says. There is a creative energy in the regions that is directing itself toward that type of processing.

I don't have too many more questions for the minister, but I would like to touch briefly on a couple of important issues in my area. One is the agricultural land reserve. The minister, of course, comes from a strong line of social democrats who believe very strongly in the preservation of the agricultural land reserve. I know he personally has supported it very strongly. There has been quite a bit of talk about refining or fine-tuning the agricultural land reserve, and I'm wondering if the minister could comment on what types of initiatives are in place and how he's approaching them.

Hon. B. Barlee: Of course, the ALR is very close to my heart. I've seen what has happened in the Okanagan and other parts of British Columbia, which is rather difficult to accept. The applications made to the Agricultural Land Commission are in themselves part of the fine-tuning process -- probably the most important part. These applications usually go through a regional district or municipal government. Generally speaking, unless they meet very strict criteria, they do not get through. I've mentioned before that we are trying to protect one acre out of 20 -- 5 percent of the land in British Columbia. I think we're doing quite a good job in that. I fought a very high-profile referendum in Oliver about ten months ago, and we won 72 percent to 28 percent. So we realize that the public is onside in our preservation of the agricultural land reserve, as far as quality of life is concerned. I think the process, as it has been set up, is generally pretty good.

There is an appeal process that is going to be changed. There won't be an appeal directly to ELUC, but there will be an intermediate body that will take care of that.

J. Beattie: I have to say that I agree that the appeal process should be changed. I think the process of going through the Agricultural Land Commission is a valid way of dealing with the quality of land. It's fairly obvious that the Agricultural Land Commission does have some fairly strict guidelines about the quality of the soil. Of course, those are always debatable, and applicants have ways of making more than one application. I feel fairly confident that the changing of the appeal process is a positive step and removes the perception of political interference. That's a good thing for a land reserve that is for future generations.

Unfortunately, many people view the agricultural land reserve as a bank upon which they can draw at some later date. I think that's misconstruing the actual reason for the establishment of the land reserve. The land reserve is there to keep land protected for a long time. Of course, that pressure on the agricultural land reserve increases exponentially in the Okanagan and other areas of the province, as growth is so persistent.

I have written to the Agricultural Land Commission on a number of issues, hon. minister. I'm wondering about the issue of land swaps. I haven't spoken directly to you about that, but I am interested in the concept -- particularly in the Okanagan, where small pieces of property can be built upon. You recognize, as I do, from living in the Okanagan, that the imposition of a house of a few thousand square feet on a piece of land that may be only three or four acres is pretty well the death knell for that piece of land as a productive property. I have a fairly creative constituent who has suggested that the government may be interested in exchanging Crown properties for properties in the land reserve and changing title. I'm wondering if that issue has ever been broached with you, and if you see it as a possibility.

Hon. B. Barlee: In reply to the hon. member, there have been rare occurrences of that. It is not the policy of the Agricultural Land Commission, nor do I think it should be. It also impacts very definitely on another ministry, and that is Crown lands. So to follow that at any great length would not be under my aegis.

[ Page 7475 ]

J. Beattie: Hon. Chair, the last issue I want to touch on is right-to-farm legislation. I'm familiar with the Okanagan. Just recently in lower Summerland an orchardist had a bank cave in, and he was under threat of suit and was very concerned about his ability to continue. Of course, the banks being quite unstable, it takes very little sometimes for these things to happen. A slide may be a rather dramatic example of the kind of pressure that is on the agriculturists in the Okanagan or the Fraser Valley -- the pressures of development around them and on the spraying. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the right-to-farm legislation that exists and the potential for developing or strengthening it. Does the minister feel it's quite adequate at this time?

[8:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: The BCFGA and the Okanagan Tree Fruit Authority are both working on codes of practice. The particular area you were talking about, hon. member, was designated a red zone by the municipality of Summerland, I'm quite sure, which means it is a dangerous area. You should not build on that, and of course, you should not build under it. Those buildings below that zone were built prior to that designation. Of course, we always have some cases....

I think the legislation is generally adequate. There are always challenges to the legislation. We have one challenge in Osoyoos facing us right now. It's before the courts, so I won't comment on that.

J. Beattie: I have one last question; I guess it's more of a comment. I am very concerned about the future of agriculture in the Okanagan, and the minister is very aware of the pressures on the commodities and on the land there. I'm confident that the revitalization program is going to be a success, and that we're going to see the development of other industries. I think we really have to become very cognizant of the residential development in our agricultural areas. I'm not sure whether we have the mechanism in place right now, or the ability to plan adequately to address the needs of planners.

A final throwout suggestion to the minister: I think you're right about the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority doing some valuable work in mapping and planning. Perhaps with all the information being collected right now, we could see a transition of this organization into a body that does a lot of regional planning. I know the mapping is very concise and accurate. Perhaps the minister and his staff would want to look at ways of augmenting the research being done in cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, with an eye to that transition stage of the future. At any rate, I thank the minister for answering my questions, and I wish him well.

F. Gingell: While our minds are still turned to the agricultural land reserve, I wonder if you could advise the committee on how many applications to take land out there were in the past year, how many were approved, and the number of acres that it amounted to.

Hon. B. Barlee: About 1,200 applications went through last year. It seems to be rather consistent. About 90 percent of those are turned down. We haven't the figures here, but we will quite gladly give them to you. So there isn't a dramatic impact. Generally speaking, most of those are for smaller acreages.

F. Gingell: That's fine. Roughly 1,200 maximum -- about 10 percent -- approved, and the acreage relatively small. So let's say less than 2,000 acres in total -- three or four sections.

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I think that's an acceptable figure. I would think it would be significantly under 2,000 acres. I'm guessing a little bit, because I do not have the figures in front of me. I will have to get back to you on that.

F. Gingell: Don't bother, because we will be getting it when the Agricultural Land Commission's report comes out.

Dealing with land that is in the agricultural land reserve -- and I appreciate it is not under your jurisdiction, but is land that the farmers of Delta always hope will come under your jurisdiction, to get it moved away from Crown lands.... There is a great deal of concern at the moment, Mr. Minister, that the Roberts Bank container port development is going to have a dramatic effect on the farmers and the agricultural lands of Delta. There is a major new road going through and a large number of very large, container-pulling vehicles coming along -- as many as 400 a day. That is not a huge number, but they're huge pieces of equipment. At this moment, as I understand it, the only commitment that has been made is that the Vancouver Port Corporation will build an overpass at Arthur Drive. But the farmers of Delta are concerned about overpasses at 41B Street, and for the Guishon farm at 46A Street. At no time is it thought that a big, expensive structure needs to be built. In fact, for the Guishon farm it could even be a culvert-type arrangement under the highway, as was done for the Mays in Richmond at No. 8 Road.

I appreciate that this really isn't in your jurisdiction, but it is something that affects the agricultural industry fairly dramatically. I wonder if you will comment on it and give me and the farmers your assurance that you will work on their behalf on this issue.

Hon. B. Barlee: Any tentative plans made by any other level of government must pass through the commission's hands. I think that is something that's extremely important. Our government is on record as.... We will re-emphasize that we have a long-term commitment to these lands, which I consider among the best -- and perhaps the best -- in British Columbia. The major player in that decision-making process is still the Agricultural Land Commission. That may set your mind at rest somewhat.

F. Gingell: While we are talking about the Roberts Bank backup lands, you appreciate -- and we discussed last year -- that one of the problems the farmers have in 

[ Page 7476 ]

maintaining the quality of the farm, reinvesting in good soil management practices and trying to react to the economic realities of the day is, first of all, that the leases are cancellable on one year's notice. Secondly, no improvements made to the property will be reimbursed if the lease is cancelled, which leads us to the Royal City Foods issue. The Royal City Foods situation has really been a disaster for the vegetable farms and many of the field crops. They are just not buying any now.

The alternatives that the farmers look at to react to that situation, in areas like greenhouses and other types of farming that may require them to build some structures, all fall into this category: they are structures that would not be reimbursed should the leases be cancelled. So it's very difficult for them to go to the bank and get a mortgage or a loan to build those, and very hard to make the decision to build. I wonder if you would react to that. It's something that we discussed last year, but that was prior to Royal City Foods adding to the problem.

Hon. B. Barlee: Both of us know that external pressures from the free trade agreement and declining tariffs had a significant, negative impact upon Royal City Foods, and that in turn impacted on the farmers in the immediate area.

As for leases and terms, that is presently under study by a proposal which is being examined very closely by Environment, Lands and Parks. I confess that the study was supposed to have been made public prior to now. I believe it is imminent, but I can't tell you the exact date offhand.

F. Gingell: Well, I was looking through my notes from last year, and we were discussing the study at great length last year. My understanding from discussions during estimates with the Minister of Environment is that it is, as you say, all coming together. He stated at that time that he anticipated dealing with the wildlife management area in Boundary Bay -- you realize it is all part of the same series of studies -- before November. Later on he said at least during November -- no later than November.

[8:45]

The farmers, Mr. Minister, are very concerned, because the designation of a wildlife management area is just a single stroke of the pen -- into a biosphere and Ramsar and all kinds of other consequences, which they don't necessarily not support. But they don't really understand what all the consequences might be and what lands and areas might be concerned. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Minister, which I'd appreciate your commitment on, is that I think it is really important for a very senior member of your staff to meet with the Delta farmers and discuss that specific issue, so that you, in dealing in cabinet with decisions on these issues -- where I am sure they will go -- can make sure that at least the voice of the Delta farmers is heard on this very important issue.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have a significant role to play in that process. I have met several times personally with the Minister of Environment and discussed the various problems the member is concerned with. The Agricultural Land Commission is also a player, as are members of my senior staff -- and I do mean my most senior staff -- from ADMs upward. This process, I hope, will be resolved by early November, and I anticipate that it will be.

F. Gingell: Just to repeat that -- I was trying to read and listen at the same time; I got a little lost there -- in dealing specifically with the decisions that will arise from those studies, your ministry....

Hon. B. Barlee: Is involved.

F. Gingell: Yes, is involved.

The Chair: Hon. members, through the Chair, please. We'll all be able to enjoy the Hansard tomorrow.

F. Gingell: Yes indeed, Mr. Chairman.

Your senior officials will meet with the Delta Farmers' Institute, because they don't think at the moment that they've been met with to insure that these specific issues have been dealt with.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have met with the farmers of Delta. On the 25th of this month, which is not too distant from now -- in fact, I guess it is a week tomorrow or something like that -- I was going to go over. I won't be, but one of my ADMs will be going over and meeting with the farmers. I think they will have a level of comfort that the process is slowly evolving, that it will probably be resolved not more than four or five months from today and that we are equally concerned about the disposition of those lands and those leases.

F. Gingell: I am really pleased to hear that. It is not really just the land and the leases. They are more concerned about the consequences of the wildlife management area designation and things that will flow from it.

Last year, when we were dealing with these estimates, we spoke briefly about the problems that farmers have in dealing with drainage and irrigation problems that result from residential development around them. When we were discussing that last year, the minister responded that his ministry was looking very seriously at replacing ARDSA. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to tell me what has happened in the past 12 months.

Hon. B. Barlee: ARDSA, unfortunately, has lived out its term, and the federal government has not come up with an equivalent program. The Agricultural Land Commission has moved into some of that vacuum, and has made certain plans with some of the municipalities that are impacting upon the agricultural lands to provide buffer zones and other safety measures that have had significant impact upon the agricultural lands in the area.

R. Chisholm: I would like to go back to the GATT, provincial trade barriers and NAFTA again for a few 

[ Page 7477 ]

more questions, and then if there is some other member who wants to ask questions, we will do the same thing again.

The Agriculture ministers met in Toronto in November, I believe it was, about interprovincial barriers. They came to the conclusion that we should be lessening the barriers and restrictions from province to province. When I look at the trade barriers we have right now between, let's say, Alberta and B.C., I notice that 13 percent of those barriers are taxes imposed by British Columbia itself. I wonder if you are negotiating with our own Finance minister as to, let's say, lowering the self-imposed barrier that we are putting on our grain growers in the northeast. As I said, 13 percent is a big barrier in itself, and this is self-imposed. If we are going to get rid of barriers, we should start doing some housecleaning at home first.

Hon. B. Barlee: Like many countries, some of the provinces of Canada do erect trade barriers between the provinces. We are making some progress in that area. We have an agreement with Ontario, which we signed last week or the week before, that our VQA wines are now on the shelf in Ontario, where several weeks ago they were not. We have done the same thing with Alberta, so VQA wines and B.C. beers are now in Alberta, and previously they were not. The progress is slow, but it is steady.

R. Chisholm: The second half of that question was the self-imposed barriers by taxation through our own provincial government. Is the minister in ongoing negotiations with the Minister of Finance to see these taxation barriers decreased, considering that we keep complaining about the level playing field and we're imposing the unlevel playing field?

Hon. B. Barlee: We're working on some of the technical barriers; we have been working at the federal level as well to have some of these barriers reduced. Certainly, some of our neighbouring provinces have attempted to buy certain industries. One of these industries that essentially has been purchased is the meat-packing industry in Alberta.

We've resolved some technical interprovincial trade barriers in the last little while. That was in the honey grades, bees and bee equipment, maple syrup grades, licensing of apple suppliers, kosher milk, live swine to Newfoundland and pasteurized eggs. We have about another ten under review: cracked eggs, game-ranched animals, fur-farmed animals, beef grade labelling, organic standards -- which is quite important -- creamer small potatoes, dairy container sizes, and some others. So we are making some progress there. I won't read them all.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I was doing Whip duties at the beginning of the minister's answer.

Could he just tell me if he is discussing the taxation problem with the Minister of Finance? At what level are we decreasing possible taxes in the Peace River area, that has had imposed that 13 percent increase?

Hon. B. Barlee: I would appreciate it if we could leave that until another meeting.

I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 8:55 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada