1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 12
[ Page 7613 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill 56 to the House. This bill makes minor amendments to the Forest Act, relating to basic silviculture. It also expands part 15 of the Forest Act -- study areas -- to deal with a number of situations where, as a result of a land use change, harvesting has to be restricted or reduced.
The silviculture amendments are intended to clarify the definition of basic silviculture and the legal status of silvicultural prescriptions approved by the ministry. In addition, the proposed amendments provide the Forest Service district managers with authority to exempt the Crown or a licensee from carrying out basic silviculture on lands when such work is not needed or appropriate.
The amendments to part 15 expand the scope of the section. That section was established to provide the ministry with necessary administrative powers to deal with forest management issues arising from the establishment of study areas under the protected-areas strategy. The proposed amendments will provide the necessary administrative powers to deal with other situations where land use change requires limiting or restricting harvesting which had previously been planned. Examples include temporarily safeguarding newly protected areas until lands can be deleted under section 53 of the Forest Act and protecting areas where special management prescriptions are to be implemented.
I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, Bill 46 proposes amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act that are revenue protection measures. The bill provides authority for the province to enter into an agreement with the federal government under which federal postal agents would collect tax on tobacco mailed into the province from outside of Canada. The bill also establishes enforcement, offence and penalty provisions for possession of tobacco in contravention of the act or regulations. These provisions are necessary to support the tobacco marking system established under the Tobacco Tax Act regulations in May of this year.
I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEFICIT
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I understand that Vancouver Community College is presently operating at a deficit of approximately $500,000 a month. Could the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what action he has taken with regard to this matter?
Hon. T. Perry: I'd be delighted to, and I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for my first question of the session.
He will know, having been chair of the Kwantlen College board in the past, that college boards are not allowed to operate with a deficit. There's a very good public reason why they should not. They receive a grant in consideration of which they are expected to provide services to students.
The government made it very clear to Vancouver Community College in the past -- at the change of the board during the strike at Langara campus last fall, and again during discussions prior to a settlement with the faculty union at the King Edward and downtown campuses last February -- that the college would be expected to live within a balanced budget. Given some of the difficulties it had experienced in the past, we allowed the board some flexibility to bring in a balanced budget over a total three-year cycle by the year 1995-96.
F. Gingell: Clearly, if they're going to be required to balance their budget they'll have to cut back some programs. Can the minister please advise us whether he has given them any instructions about which programs should not be cut back?
An Hon. Member: Yes or no.
Hon. T. Perry: The Leader of the Official Opposition has asked an intelligent question, and he's entitled to an attempt at a reasonable answer at least.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. T. Perry: The board at the college, as the questioner well knows, has the authority to make decisions about the budget. We have indicated that the government would take a dim view of the college, which received substantial increases in funding this year, substantial one-time special grants last year and very favourable budgetary treatment from the government over the last several years, were it to take out its problems on the disadvantaged students that it particularly serves. I've made it very clear that the
[ Page 7614 ]
college will not take out its own problems on disabled students, on students requiring English-as-a-second-language training or on students who require adult basic education assistance because the school system, for various reasons, failed them in the past. Their mandate is to serve the students of B.C. We've taken a very clear position on this, and I have full confidence that the excellent board that serves Vancouver Community College will fulfil that responsibility.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: If you take the college's program and cut out what the minister says they mustn't, all it leaves is skills development and training. Will I be wasting my time the rest of this week attending the Premier's special summit on skills development and training?
Hon. T. Perry: I'm delighted that the hon. member has been honoured with one of the invitations to that summit. He will definitely not be wasting his time. Attending the summit is one of the best investments he could possibly make of his time.
WINDY CRAGGY PROJECT
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Deputy Premier. By killing the Windy Craggy project without even giving it the benefit of an environmental assessment process, the government has ignored the process that it is putting in place. Will the government follow the advice that it received from Stephen Owen and have a proper environmental hearing, or doesn't the government care at all what northerners think about this project and the need for jobs and opportunities in the area where they live?
Hon. A. Hagen: The Leader of the Third Party is speaking about the announcement made by the Premier this morning on behalf of our government on the preservation and setup of a world-class park in the Tatshenshini area -- an announcement of which we on this side of the House are inordinately proud. This park of over a million acres will preserve wildlife and wilderness values and put us at the international forefront. It is a decision that this government will be proud to have as part of its heritage. We will work with other parties to ensure that our decision becomes part of an international park in this area that will add to the economy and social and preservation values that we have espoused as a government.
[2:15]
The Speaker: Supplemental, Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: British Columbians resent having land use decisions made in the White House rather than here in Victoria. Clearly the government would rather be politically correct with Al Gore and Bill Clinton than recognize the responsibility it has to the people of British Columbia. Will the Deputy Premier agree today to table any and all correspondence this government has had with the Clinton administration regarding the Tatshenshini area?
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, this is a provincial decision; it is a decision of this New Democrat government. As I said a moment ago, it is a decision of which we are very proud. Let me take a look with the members of this House at the development of this decision. Let us go back to the paper, and investigation of Stephen Owen, where he fundamentally advised the government that in this decision there was no way for wilderness preservation to take place when the mine develops. This decision preserves wilderness values; a decision where the CORE process and the work of government has come to a balanced decision that will be welcomed by people all over the province, nationally and internationally, in the establishment of this world-class park.
J. Weisgerber: If the Deputy Premier hasn't had an opportunity to read Mr. Owen's report, let me urge her to do so today. The mining industry has lost whatever faith and confidence it has had in this government. The Windy Craggy decision was made without any consultation. Is the government determined to finish today what Dave Barrett started 20 years ago, and kill the mining industry in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Hagen: No. This is not an anti-mining decision. At this very time development processes are in place for seven mines in British Columbia. This government is developing a mining policy for the province. This decision does not speak to mining; it speaks to the setting up of something unparalleled in the world: a park in British Columbia which, along with parks in the Yukon and Alaska, will make up the largest international contiguous park and preserve wilderness values in a way that has never been done before. This government is enormously proud to have made a balanced decision -- one that will set in motion that heritage not only for our people but for other people in the world as we work with other nations on that park.
TREATY COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Premier has repeatedly stated that this province will not agree to any cost-sharing agreements in treaties the taxpayers cannot afford. Could the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs indicate where the money is coming from for the agreements that were entered into by this government last week?
Hon. A. Petter: While the agreement we have signed on cost-sharing doesn't tell us what the cost of treaty negotiations will be -- that will be subject to the negotiations itself -- it protects the interests of British Columbians very well. Indeed, in terms of treaty settlement costs, British Columbia's share of cash and cash equivalents has been limited to under 25 percent and should average around 17 percent of the total costs. However, that includes credit to the province for land
[ Page 7615 ]
values that are contributed in the form of market values in some cases and foregone resource values in others. That means that the cash share of the province is going to be very small in order to fulfil this agreement at the treaty negotiation table.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: The amount involved is still going to be in the millions, even at 17 percent plus the third-party 50 percent. It will still be in the millions, if not billions, of dollars. Where is this included in the budget of this government at this time?
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I very much enjoyed engaging with the member opposite on this very issue during the estimates debate. We came to an understanding -- at least I thought we had -- that the province couldn't afford not to go ahead with this very important initiative. The member himself has acknowledged that $1 billion in investment is not coming into the province because we failed to resolve this issue. Furthermore, under this agreement many more dollars will come into this province from other provinces, like Quebec and Ontario, through the contribution of the federal government, because the federal government is going to pay back this province for the failure of its past policies to address these social issues. That will be a major economic contribution to our well-being.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
V. Anderson: I understand the minister's shell game. Under which shell is the money at the moment? We want to know in what aspect this is going to be in the budget. When will it appear in the budget of this government?
Hon. A. Petter: Due to this cost-sharing agreement, as we move towards treaty negotiations, we now have the ability to assess the precise cost to British Columbians of various alternatives. We'll be able to put financial controls in place to ensure that treaty settlements will be affordable, as the Premier indicated. Those costs will show up in the budget estimates as we proceed through treaty settlements. But I want to encourage the hon. member to look not just at the short-term costs but also at the short- and long-term benefits of this agreement, because they are going to be substantial in terms of investment and certainty. That is why both aboriginal and third-party interests spoke out yesterday in favour of this very fine agreement for B.C.
EFFECT OF TAX INCREASES ON BUSINESS
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Throughout this province business people are getting together -- tonight, in fact, in the municipality of Prince George -- to argue that reform is needed in the Assessment Authority because of the increase in municipal taxes. Many people who are subjected to triple-net leases are unable to pay the bills that are before them, and their businesses are going bankrupt. What is the Minister of Finance doing to look after the increase in taxes that is affecting businesses all over this province?
Hon. G. Clark: An excellent question from the member. I was very surprised to read in the paper today that the mayor of Vancouver -- I'm sure members of the Liberal Party are familiar with him -- who also happens to be the chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and was the president of the UBCM, had the audacity to suggest that somehow the provincial government is responsible for the spiralling property taxes paid by municipal taxpayers.
A tax-capping mechanism that required provincial government approval was requested by the city of Vancouver and Mayor Campbell in the past. When we took office, Mayor Campbell asked us not to proceed with tax capping but instead to bring in annual assessments and three-year averaging of taxes. At his request, we acceded to their recommendations, and we brought in that law. Now his property taxpayers in Vancouver are screaming about rising property values, and he has the audacity to suggest that somehow it's a provincial responsibility. Since coming to office, no request for tax capping has ever been received by this administration. In addition, as chairman of the GVRD, Mayor Campbell has presided over three of the largest budget increases in the history of B.C.
Hon. B. Barlee: After that ringing speech, may I have leave of the House to introduce some visitors from overseas?
Leave granted.
Hon. B. Barlee: I had the unique pleasure of meeting the representatives from Swaziland, the High Commissioner Mary Kanya and her two aides, who are visiting British Columbia for a very temporary visit. We'd like to welcome them to our fair province.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me advise all hon. members that the House will be sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock so that we can continue the same line of questioning we just finished in question period.
I believe we have a report from Committee A with regard to the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Speaker: Perhaps the Government House Leader could clarify for the Chair. Are we undergoing a summary of completed estimates from Committee A?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. Speaker. Later on I will deal with the rest of the business for today.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to report on the discussions we've had during the estimates. There are basically three issues facing agriculture today: monetary issues, environmental issues and the testing
[ Page 7616 ]
of new equipment. I briefly want to summarize my comments on those three.
The minister and the cabinet know full well that the agriculture industry is based on land and facilities to accommodate the cattle, flocks of birds and what have you -- all adding up to a high capital investment. This capital investment is continually being challenged by higher municipal taxes, school taxes and, of course, on top of that, the corporate tax initiated by this government. If indeed agriculture is as important as people think it is -- and as I believe it is -- it's high time governments at all levels took a serious look at the taxation on farmland, farm buildings and farm holdings collectively.
[2:30]
The other part has to do with all the loans that have, to a large degree, been designated to environmental issues. The loans were there for the farmer to improve, expand and modernize equipment and facilities in order to meet the continuous competition, of all sorts, within agriculture. I was disappointed to hear that the minister has decided that 60 percent of these funds have to be designated for environmental issues dealing with agriculture. The farming community is environmentally sensitive. I feel that it's unfair that the government has decided that 60 percent of those moneys have to be designated for that specific purpose.
The other item we briefly touched on was the testing of new equipment and other things related to agriculture production. I believe that there could be a great improvement in terms of assisting the farming community if the government were involved in testing new products and varieties like they do on experimental farms. There would also be an opportunity on those farms, or on the normal farm, for new types of equipment, such as a prototype, to be tested, with some assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture. This is where the agriculture community is really putting a lot of money at stake, often not knowing how well a machine will perform and how much it will help them in agricultural production.
Having said those things, I believe that collectively we've achieved a much better understanding of agriculture, and I want to wish the ministry the very best. Of course, this being Dairy Month, it's very appropriate to give recognition to that as well.
R. Chisholm: Over the past 19 months, since this NDP government has taken office, Agriculture and Fisheries have been a low priority. In the last two throne and budget speeches, Agriculture has not even been mentioned. The last two budgets have drastically reduced this ministry's total budget from $96.4 million in 1991-92 to $89.1 million in 1993-94, which is a reduction of $7.3 million in 19 months. But the actual axe to Agriculture is much greater. Why? Because during this time the minister's office and staff have increased their spending. The minister's office expenditures alone increased by $20,000 in the last 19 months. The ministry's operations for staff assets have increased by $2.9 million under this minister. Let me repeat: that is an increase of over $20,000 in the minister's office and $2.9 million in ministry operations -- at a time when this government is yelling "restraint."
It's time to curb ministers' expenditures. If this is NDP restraint, this province is in for big trouble. The only restraint this government and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries know is to restrain and kill farmers and fishermen. For a true reading of how much this government has killed Agriculture and Fisheries since it took office just over a year ago, we note that in 1991-92 over $32 million was used to assist the industry, but in 1993-94 it was reduced to $22.4 million. This is the actual hands-on money to the farmer. Therefore, in a little over a year, this Minister of Agriculture has reduced assistance to Agriculture and Fisheries on such things as the ALR to the tune of $9.7 million. That is a 30 percent direct reduction to Agriculture and Fisheries at a time when this minister knows the industry needs assistance.
When this minister was in opposition less than two years ago, he said on page 11276 of Hansard, July 23, 1990: "The minister is making a tacit admission that there are sectors of the agricultural community definitely at peril. He mentioned there were some vegetable growers and berry growers -- and of course, soft fruits. What about the milk producers?"
I further note on page 11283 of Hansard, July 27, 1990: "We talk about the grain farmers. The grain farmers in the Peace River are having a heck of a tough time." As soon as he became minister, he made worse the very things he promised to rectify: a 30 percent reduction in the industry, while the minister and his office take an increase of $2.9 million. That $2.9 million would go a long way to help the farmers and fishermen of this province. With a total ministry budget of $89.1 million in 1993, it is sad that only $22.4 million goes to assist farmers and fishermen. This minister has devoted a mere 25 percent of his budget to assist an industry that is hurting. This is appalling, and must not be tolerated.
Agriculture and fisheries have been our wealth since the beginning of our country. This minister is ruining our province and our main resources. To the Minister of Agriculture, who presented a disastrous budget, I say: "Change it to favour the industry, or resign."
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps we should take a rational look at agriculture. We should strip the politics apart -- which the member for Abbotsford did, in his usual gentlemanly way -- and make a real analysis of the position of agriculture in British Columbia.
There are 280 commodities or sectors under the food industry in British Columbia. Out of those 280, seven are on what we call the danger list. Like any other business, agriculture is vulnerable. But the other 273 are doing quite well. Let's see how well they really are doing. First of all, the total number of people employed by the ministry in agriculture, fisheries and food is 209,000. Those 209,000 people are employed whether there is a recession, a recession-depression or good times. This industry regularly grows from 3 to 5 percent every year. How well has it grown? Let's take a look at the total income from agriculture, fisheries and food in 1972. The total income in 1972 was $210 million. In 1992 it was $2.1 billion -- ten times as much in 20 years. Let's
[ Page 7617 ]
take a real look at it and use the federal figures. Eight years ago we had about 20,000 farms in B.C. -- I believe 19,342 to be exact. We had about 30 bankruptcies, which is really quite low. The figures the year before last were 15 bankruptcies in B.C., the lowest per capita in Canada. Last year there were ten bankruptcies, by far the lowest in Canada. Let's look at average net income. Certainly the critic forgot to mention that. The average net income in B.C. is the highest in the country. It came up 21 percent in 1991 and is projected at a 24 percent increase in 1992. Certainly no other agricultural ministry in the country that can match that.
We have employed a long-term strategy. The strategy isn't perfect all the time. We have to launch pilot projects and we have to look at it very rationally. The member said I wasn't spending enough money one time and then that I was spending too much. This is a ministry that has been downsized as far as economic benefits are concerned, but on balance the farmers themselves are doing very well. So let's look at three or four of those areas where we're concerned.
One of them, certainly, is cross-border shopping. Cross-border shopping costs B.C. around $1.7 billion per annum; that's $5 million every day. In British Columbia alone it is as if we were sending five millionaires down into the state of Washington, Montana or Idaho -- because they all border B.C. -- and they come back with nothing. We're doing that seven days a week. This is a hemorrhage we have to at least address. We won't be able to stop all of that, but we may be able to stop part of it. We've launched a very serious study with an innovative and creative individual who owns an advertising agency called Ravenwolf House. It's not your Madison Avenue advertising agency, but he's a guy who is creative and innovate, and he's looking at this problem. Cross-border shopping is driven by a number of things. In some instances it's driven by lower prices, sometimes by a different type of service, by the price of gasoline, the price of food and sometimes by adventure. We're looking at this, and we've put the first phase into production. When we analyze that first phase, if it's successful, we'll go onto the second phase. We're never going to reduce it entirely.
Another thing we're looking at extremely closely is our Buy B.C. program, which will span five years and spend $9.5 million. Last year, the first year of the program, we spent $400,000. This year we're going to spend $1.5 million. And we're not throwing the money away here, we're being extremely cautious. We've launched two pilot projects. One is the Thrifty's project that we debated at length in the estimates. Thrifty Foods, as most people know, is a small B.C.-owned chain store that operates in British Columbia. They had nine stores and they've done so well that now they have ten. In conjunction with one other agency, we launched a program there that high-profiled B.C. produce. We were told that consumer loyalty in B.C. was very low, so we checked 43 jurisdictions across North America -- 38 states in the United States and five provinces. We found that consumer loyalty in B.C. is not low. It's probably the best in North America. The results of Thrifty's campaign over two weeks indicated that. Ordinarily when a chain store puts on a promotion, their traffic increase is 2 percent. Thrifty's traffic came up between 9 and 10 percent. The average sales of the 27 companies went up 168 percent, and some of them went up 930 percent. We placed 27 new products on the shelves. Amazingly enough, Thrifty's kept most of those customers. With the exception of one, all the other retail chains in British Columbia are now sitting at the table with me on the minister's advisory council. They are at the table for the first time in 20 years.
What else have we addressed? We have addressed the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, which was brought in 20 years ago. No act is perfect; either you have to revise it or you have to strengthen it. We are strengthening the Agricultural Land Reserve Act.
What have we done in the last year? I'll tell you what we've done, and it's extremely important -- what I consider hallmark legislation. There are approximately 11.5 million acres under the land reserve. We lost about 1,130 acres last year, which is under one-hundredth of 1 percent. This has all sorts of ramifications. It adds to the quality of life for people who live in southern Vancouver Island, Vancouver or in the Okanagan, where there's a great deal of pressure on the land. The ALR is under significant pressure in those areas. So we are strengthening that particular act, and I look to the future, where we will retain our greenbelts in British Columbia not just for the benefit of the farmers but for the public at large.
Finally, we are also reaching outside and looking at other treaties that are impacting on us. The members opposite all voted for NAFTA. The NAFTA is a very interesting agreement, but even the Americans are looking at NAFTA now and saying: "Hold it here. There are some things in this agreement we don't like. It's going to be very difficult for us to compete with Mexican labour." And indeed it is. So I think you should have another rational look at that, and I think you will; I think you'll live to regret it.
Other treaties come into play; the Pacific Salmon Treaty is an example. We have had a treaty with the Americans since 1985 -- about eight years ago. If you compare what they have done in the United States of America to what we have done in Canada, there is a vast difference. The two great salmon rivers in the world were the Columbia River, which was the greatest, and the Fraser River, which was the second-greatest. What did we do? We took very good care of the Fraser River. We sacrificed some economic benefits because we didn't dam it. The result is that last year we had the biggest run of salmon in the Fraser River since 1913. That salmon run is coming back because we have practised conservation. What did the Americans do? They put dozens and dozens of dams on the Columbia River and all its tributaries, so that once magnificent run of salmon in that area is virtually gone. Now they want to dip into our resources in the Fraser River. They want 100 percent more. We're saying -- and we side with the federal government on this; there are no politics involved -- that the federal minister, the Hon. John Crosbie, and Yves Fortier, who is his negotiator, have done a good job. So we're standing firm on this.
[2:45]
[ Page 7618 ]
Admittedly, not everything in agriculture is perfect; we know that. It's a vulnerable business. But when you look at ten bankruptcies in 20,000 farm businesses, that's pretty good. That's one out of every 2,000 businesses. Of those seven areas we are concerned with, one is the Peace River block and one is the orchards of the Okanagan. We are addressing those in a long-term strategy, and I think it will work out.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, and advise all members that Committee A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and, by agreement, move to a different estimate later on today.
In Committee of Supply B, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 54: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: One question I want to ask the minister right off is about the annual report for 1991-92, which I do not believe we've received. I have been looking forward to it and inquiring about it, because it certainly would have been helpful in preparing for the estimates. Could the minister tell us when that report might be available?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That annual report is in production. We can't give you a hard date at this time.
V. Anderson: I wanted to check one thing with the minister in relation to the discussion this morning. If I remember rightly, last year she indicated that the caseload of the Social Services ministry was somewhere around 280 per worker, and she was hoping to get it down to 245. Those may not be exact figures, but they are in the ballpark. I'm wondering what has happened this year and what the projections are. How many new workers does she expect to be putting on the front line, and what should the resulting caseload be?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The caseload currently is at 308. With this budget, the new staff allocation of 135 financial assistance workers will put the caseload at 262.
V. Anderson: So the indication is that instead of going down last year, the caseload went up from roughly 280, as I remember, to 308. So you would hope to bring it down just a little below what it started at a year ago. I think it's important to be aware of that.
I want to respond to the minister's comment that on the one hand we're asking her to do new programs, and so to spend money; on the other hand, we're asking questions so that money will not be spent. I think our purpose here is not really to do either one, but to confirm that money is to be spent effectively and efficiently and that priorities may need to be adjusted from time to time within the funds that are available.
When we were looking at ages of persons who receive social services, we talked about adults either at 18 or 19. Would the minister clarify when people are considered to be adult for the purposes of Social Services? What is the position of young people under that age of 18 or 19 who have either dropped out of school or completed high school and are not living at home?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I indicated earlier, the legal age is 19. We deal with those cases of under-age children on an individual basis.
V. Anderson: I know a number of young people are out living in the community: part of the street community in the downtown and others throughout the province. Could the minister share with us what criteria are taken into account in dealing with them on an individual basis?
Hon. J. Smallwood: When I indicate that they're dealt with on an individual basis, I mean exactly that. The worker will work with the child to try to reunite them with their families, to understand whether that is an option for the child and to develop support services depending on the child's need.
V. Anderson: We also raised a number of questions about day care. We've had some discussion and probably will have more later on. For example, a person who is going to work on a regular basis probably has day care arranged for, or else they're not able to work. What about the person who needs day care on a part-time basis because of sickness or other possibilities that come up? What arrangements are made for people on social assistance who might need occasional day care and don't have family available for that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member is well aware, we have two programs in our ministry -- the day care subsidy program and special needs day care. The majority of the day care programs are coordinated by the Ministry of Women's Equality. If the member would like to ask some specific questions about our day care programs, I'd be glad to answer.
V. Anderson: I presume services under the day care subsidy program are contracted out to different groups, or they're run by your groups. The money spent on those services is listed under grants and contributions, so I am assuming they are contracted services. If they're not contracted, how are the grants and contributions for those programs operated? Again, are they available on an occasional basis for single-parent or two-parent families who need them?
[ Page 7619 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The day care subsidy is a direct grant to parents who are needs-tested. A person has to be eligible for a subsidy, and that subsidy is provided for the number of children at the time care is needed.
V. Anderson: Perhaps for the record -- you referred me to the book last time -- you'd clarify the distinction between grants and contributions, so that, for those who are reading Hansard, that distinction will be clear. If I've got the right lines, we have $76 million in.... Let me just double-check that line. We have $76,000 in grants and $55 million in contributions. I'm wondering about the $76,000 in grants and the $55 million in contributions under day care subsidies.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The $76 million is day care subsidies. The $56 million is for health care and dental services.
V. Anderson: I couldn't quite hear you on the last one.
Hon. J. Smallwood: You're looking at the line down; you're mixing the two of them. The $76 million is day care subsidies, and the other is under health services.
V. Anderson: No, I'm looking at day care subsidies in column No. 80. Under grants, it's $76,000; and under contributions, No. 82, it's $55 million.
Hon. J. Smallwood: What we're talking about here is $76 million for day care, and under that is $76,000; and next to that is the $55 million. But the $76,000 and the $55 million are both health care services.
V. Anderson: The $76 million is for day care subsidies, and all of that is grants given to individuals so they can purchase day care. The minister is nodding. Is that for day care on a regular basis, week by week or month by month? Is there a possibility, because of circumstances, for short-term day care or relief?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The subsidy is calculated on a daily basis. For the member's information, the subsidy is paid to the caregiver on behalf of the client.
V. Anderson: Okay, that's a clarification. I didn't understand that the first time around. It's not paid directly to the client; it's paid to the caregiver on behalf of the client.
Has the need for day care services or the amount of money contributed for day care increased or decreased this year? Is there any significant difference from what has happened previously in that particular area? When a person is in one of the employment programs, is day care included as part of the employment subsidy? Is that kind of day care included here, or is that over and above this day care, as part of their employment or educational training?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Last year's voted expenditure was roughly $71 million, and it's $76 million this year. That is demand-driven. There has not been an increase in the subsidy rate.
[3:00]
There was another part to the question, but I didn't quite catch it.
V. Anderson: The other part of the question was: if single parents, for instance, are taking part in an employment training program or an educational upgrading program, are their day care needs taken into account in this $76 million, or is that part of the expense of those two particular programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two ways that someone participating in one of our employment and training programs will access support for day care. One is the basic support under the day care subsidies. There is also a top-up provision to cover the cost. Our subsidies do not cover the full cost of day care, so there's a top-up for people taking employment and training through the ministry.
V. Anderson: Is there any limitation on the number of children in a family who can take advantage of that? Is it applicable to certain ages? Does it apply equally to after-school care and care during the day for children who might be in school, and is there after-school care for children whose parents are still at work?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'll get the specific details for you, but there is after-school day care. It is age-specific, but it is not limited as to the number of children in a family. The out-of-school care is for children up to and including the age of 12.
V. Anderson: Is there a particular reason for the cutoff at 12? Basically it would be elementary school children. Is there an assumption that children over 12 are able to be home on their own without adult supervision?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Twelve is the age in the Criminal Code.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, but I still would raise the question for consideration. This is the time when many youngsters are more likely to get into difficulty without the interactive support of family, particularly if they're in low-income families where they do not have the resources to be involved in athletics and other activities. I hope you might review this at some time within the ministry, because I'm sure that if you ask your community panel, they'll have some strong feelings that it's worthy of consideration. The minister indicates that there's the issue of money, and I recognize that. Perhaps there are ways of doing it with some cooperative funds for community activities. Many community groups would be interested in helping and being part of that kind of activity if there was some guidance and direction for them.
[ Page 7620 ]
I would like to look at some other aspects. The ministry has added $388 million in the area of social services. Would she like to highlight the significance of that increase? First of all, there is a $22 million increase in program management for social assistance. What is the expansion of staff, programs, offices or whatever it might be in the area of program management and assistance that accounts for that $22 million?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, there is $3 million for annualization of salary and benefit adjustments. The remaining $19.13 million breaks down as $11.13 million for salaries and benefits; $3.74 million, operating costs; $2 million, systems operating cost pressures; $310,000, training for new staff; $980,000, operating allowances for travel, office expenditure systems and voice telecommunications; and $210,000 for dental-optical services claims administration.
V. Anderson: Under program management, $1.25 million is listed under No. 30 for office and business. There's also $1.9 million for total asset acquisitions under that category, which I take it means items that are purchased or added to something. What are those asset acquisitions? A major part of it, of course, is office and business undertakings under No. 30.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm told that it is systems hardware and.... Are you looking at STOB 68?
V. Anderson: Vote 55, No. 30, under program management.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's for office supplies.
V. Anderson: When you talk about systems hardware, I presume it's the communications hardware that you mentioned earlier to help with identification and control in the systems throughout the province. Does this mean that all of the offices are now interconnected by a computer system? Is there now a central network of computer databases that were not there previously, and has it been extended considerably in the last year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is yes.
V. Anderson: Looking at income assistance, the $1.779 billion for the current year is an increase of $350 million. Would the minister like to comment on that increase?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It is driven simply by our requirement to meet need. It is caseload pressure.
V. Anderson: Looking at how you've been driven this last year, I'm wondering what your projections are for the coming year. Have you projected a 10, 15 or 20 percent increase similar to the increase for this current year? I'm conscious of the fact that we had a grant of $40 million to make up for the overrun a year ago. Are we projecting that there will also be a grant, or have we applied a 20 percent increase over the current year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not prepared to speculate on what next year's budget will bring. To the best of our ability, and through our knowledgeable staff, we have projected what the caseload pressures will be for this year. As the member well knows, we are only into this year's budget by a couple of months, and it's a little early to tell.
V. Anderson: We are looking at the area which probably has the greatest increase of any item in the budget. Others in the discussion today have raised the concern about the professional ability to take advantage of the system. The minister has also responded that there are people who may inadvertently not be using the system properly because they are not aware of how the system operates or because they have received income that they did not realize they needed to report. Is there some way besides the "fraud investigations" that the minister will be trying to help the community at large have confidence in the system and appreciate that the larger number of the people within the system are not abusing it?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yesterday we talked a great deal about some of the work that we're doing in developing our communication tools within the ministry. Not only are we developing our ability to talk to one another and learn from the vast experience of a number of staff at all levels, but we are also developing strategies to ensure that we can communicate clearly with the people that we serve, allowing them to understand not only what services we are able to provide for them and what choices they can make, but what their responsibilities are as well. We will continue to work to enhance our ability to speak in plain language to those that we serve.
V. Anderson: If I understand correctly, within the system there are a number of categories for people who are seeking assistance. There are those who are on temporary assistance and those who have income assurances on a long-term basis. Perhaps the minister might explain the average length of time people are on temporary assistance, as against those persons who have income assurances on a long-term basis. Yesterday the minister indicated there were 193,825 clients. I understand that did not include dependents, and that if we included dependents we went well over 300,000. Does that fluctuate with the temporary assistance coming and going? Is there a relative caseload of those who are on long-term assurance of support? What percentage would be on long-term support as against those who are on temporary support?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not altogether sure where we should start with this. One of the things I'd like to point out for the member is that we produce a monitoring report on a quarterly basis. I'm sure the member has access to those reports. I'd like to refer him to the last quarterly report from March 1993. That will provide him with all of the numbers he would like.
[3:15]
[ Page 7621 ]
V. Anderson: Can anyone within the community get that information? Will that information be supplied to them simply by writing to the minister's office? For those people who are interested in keeping in touch with this information, where could they get a copy of that quarterly report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For community members who are interested, the quarterly reports are in some libraries, but they are welcome to phone the ministry as well.
V. Anderson: The other day we briefly discussed handicapped benefits and the number of people who are on that kind of benefit. Perhaps the minister would explain to us the kinds of benefits that people receive for health coverage. Is medical coverage paid for? We also hear of a number of people in the community who have no medical coverage. Is the minister able to explain why some people who are not able to afford it would have no medical coverage?
Hon. J. Smallwood: In this last budget year, we as a government were very pleased to be able to announce the extension of medical services coverage not only for all people on income assistance -- that's the basic coverage -- but in addition to that, in cooperation with the Ministry of Health, for low-income people as well.
V. Anderson: Is the extension of health coverage to low-income people who may not be on social assistance done on an application basis? How would information about its availability get to these people?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member is well aware, this is the estimates for the Ministry of Social Services. If he'd like to ask questions specific to the Minister of Health, I would encourage him to do it during those estimates.
V. Anderson: To what extent are the dental program and optical services part of the program under the auspices of the Minister of Social Services? As well, what kinds of miscellaneous therapies are included?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't know that we have all the information about what miscellaneous services are covered. We would be more than happy to provide the member with an in-depth briefing around the medical support that we're able to give clients. I have the basic budget items if the member would like to ask in specific categories.
V. Anderson: Earlier there was some discussion, particularly with other members, about the employment opportunities program, community tourism projects and environmental programs. The minister indicated that in one program the ministry had a cost saving of up to $2 and in another program a cost saving of only 41 cents. Can she explain the difference in cost savings among various programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The employment opportunity program is a wage subsidy program, where the ministry tops up a wage that an employer pays. We require the employer to pay minimum wage, and then we top that up with an additional $3.50 per hour. That's giving a person on income assistance an opportunity for a job that provides a future for them. Depending on the type of program, we may pay the full amount of the wage. Our RISE programs actually create a job, and the wage differs between the types of jobs. Our forest enhancement workers program provides three stages: $7, $8 and $9, depending on the stage. I'm doing that off the top of my head, but I believe those are the numbers.
As you can see, depending on the wage paid, depending on whether it's a wage subsidy or a job creation program, there will be a difference in the actual cost saving to the program. Some are break-even programs, where people on income assistance are actually provided with that investment -- we'd rather have people working than on welfare -- and some of them are cost savings to the system.
V. Anderson: Where persons are involved in any of those employment programs, particularly in forest management or enhancement, where they have to leave their home community and go to some other place, do they get travel, moving and start-up expenses for housing, clothing and other things that they would need in order to undertake that new project?
Hon. J. Smallwood: If there is no other source for that individual to obtain moving expenses from, yes, we will support them in that initiative.
V. Anderson: You responded to the question about moving expenses. What about re-establishing themselves in new locations and setting up a new household with equipment or clothing they might need for that new job? For instance, somebody moving from the city out into forest enhancement is not likely to have the kind of clothes that are necessary.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We actually have a budgeted amount in our employment and training envelope that supports people into the workplace, whether it is providing them with support -- and we talked about day care or transportation -- or with work clothes as well as tools. Speaking specifically of the forest enhancement program, that program is targeted to regions and is only relevant in areas where there is a forest industry. There are such waiting lists for these programs -- people on welfare want to work -- that we're not having to go out of the region to place people.
V. Anderson: I notice that you also talked about regionally developed programs. Are there other specifically regionally developed programs of significance besides forest enhancement and tourism that would be of interest?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our RISE programs support communities in identifying areas where work
[ Page 7622 ]
can be developed and created. Those programs are very flexible. They meet community needs. The people who administer those programs and work in our offices are very well connected to the communities; we often work with community partners in creating employment. I just want to make the point that those programs differ from region to region. The annual amount designated in this year's budget for our RISE programs is roughly $20 million. We estimate that the impact of that program, in and of itself, is that we are able to assist approximately 10,000 people on income assistance a year with that program.
V. Anderson: You indicated $20 million for the RISE program. The employment initiative program has a total of $58 million within it. You indicated that Build B.C. -- B.C. 21 -- money will be added to this program. Does that mean that this $58 million will be almost doubled as a result of the B.C. 21 additions to it? Is it all in this category?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have approximately $58.7 million for employment and training programs in our ministry's budget. An additional $22 million in B.C. 21 has been allocated specifically to support income assistance recipients. However, as the member is well aware, the goals of B.C. 21 are to support disadvantaged groups across all programs, including people on income assistance. So there will be additional benefit in other programs.
The Chair: Hon. member, may I remind you to address your remarks through the Chair. Please continue.
V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Chair.
We talked mainly about the work opportunity experience programs. As part of her ministry's program of upgrading, would the minister explain the educational and rehabilitative training opportunities at colleges, universities and technical schools? What are the opportunities for people in those particular areas?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I'm sure the member is well aware, either we purchase seats at community colleges on behalf of our clients, or it's done through community-based training enterprises. The training is varied. It is designed to meet people where they are in their life experience. Support services for people involved in training range from drug and alcohol counselling to ESL and ABE, as well as on-the-job training that is specific to work experience. Again, if the member wants to be more specific, I'd be happy to elaborate.
V. Anderson: Is it the intention of the ministry that those who participate will end up with accreditation in this training -- a diploma, certificate or a degree -- something that will give them recognized standing within the community? In order for those people to be fully qualified in the area they and the ministry agreed on, is the ministry prepared to carry them through to the completion of that training or university course?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are expanded opportunities, specifically for single parents to extend their education for a three-year period. That would provide an opportunity for some diploma programs. But the objective of the training and support that is given is re-entry into the workplace. So we are heading toward being able to design programs that support an individual with a target of obtaining a job and sustaining that employment.
V. Anderson: One would not be able to complete many diploma or certificate courses in that period of time. If somebody has gone into a college or university program, I assume that you would take them through the beginning years, and they would be left on their own to complete that program afterwards -- say in education or something of that ilk.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member needs to understand that these programs are designed to assist people on income assistance. As far as basic education is concerned, they are not meant to supplant the education system of the Ministry of Advanced Education or the Ministry of Education.
[3:30]
We have targeted our programs to assist people on income assistance to the best of our ability with the resources that we have. Considering the demand, those resources are limited. For many people, we recognize that we are simply giving them assistance into the workplace. We are hopeful that it will be a successful re-entry and that they can continue to improve their lives from that point on.
V. Anderson: I'd like to move from the area of social assistance to community services, so that we might look at that for a few moments. We notice a $28 million increase in community support services. Just going down through the categories under that, we notice an almost $2 million increase for program management. Again, I'm assuming that this would be an increase in staff in order to undertake these particular programs.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll have to ask the member to help us out; I'm not sure where he's looking. We're not able to find the numbers he's talking about.
V. Anderson: The $28 million was arrived at by subtracting last year's figure from the $354 million for the current year for community support services. It came to a difference of $28 million. Then under program management, when you take last year's figures away from the $20 million, there is an almost $2 million dollar difference. There's $20.910 million for the current year, and that's up $1,854,000 from the year before.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The total is actually $1.85 million for program management, $800,000 for the annualization of salaries and benefits, $660,000 for caseload management for persons with mental
[ Page 7623 ]
handicaps and for special needs children and $390,000 for service delivery operating cost pressures.
V. Anderson: With regard to the $660,000 for persons with mental handicaps and special needs children, does that indicate that there is an increase in the demand for services for mental handicapped persons and special needs children? Is there an increase in the number of children needing that care, or does it indicate some other implications within that system?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The pressure there is because of more adults in residential care and more children who are in the transition to adulthood.
V. Anderson: When you say "more," could you give us some indication of the approximate numbers, so we would have an indication of that shift? Is it because persons with mental handicaps are facing a variety of opportunities, and they're leaving home and are no longer being cared for by their families? Or are they in circumstances that have now put them into care, and they weren't there before?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a number of reasons why we're seeing an increased pressure. More children are surviving because of medical technologies, and aging parents are no longer able to look after their adult children. In 1992-93, there was an estimate of 4,100 adults; in 1993-94 it is estimated that there will be a demand of 4,250.
V. Anderson: That's an important area. But while there's an increase in care for mentally handicapped and special needs children of $660,000, there is a larger increase in salary annualization and adjustments of $800,000. When you look at these figures, it seems that more is going to salary adjustments than to the actual care portion. If you add the service delivery and special operating cost pressures to the salary adjustments, there is almost $1.25 million -- almost twice as much as in actual care to the mentally handicapped and children in care.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The annualization for salaries and benefits is for all of the ministry staff in this area. The $660,000 in caseload management is for enhancements or additions to program money contracted for service in the community.
V. Anderson: When we look at the services for special needs children -- which was commented on in the latter part of this -- I gather that that is primarily in contributions, which is services provided and paid for by the ministry for people who are in care homes or facilities or special support systems within those care facilities or homes. Or does it include both their day-to-day living arrangements and educational or support services in the community?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, let me provide you with the breakdown for the $3.18 million: $2.81 million is for the service wait-list for special needs programs. That includes special needs day care, at-home programs, infant development, family care for handicapped children and child care resources for handicapped children. There is an additional $1.4 million to make up a shortfall in at-home medical goods; there was not enough transferred from last year. There has been a decrease of $1.03 million to reflect an underexpenditure in the at-home respite program.
V. Anderson: Does this include care providers for children with special needs who would be in the day school programs and who need a caregiver with them within the day school programs? Is that part of the caregiving you are giving a worker with those children who are integrated into the day school program but who need a caregiver with them in that program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That service is provided by the Ministry of Education.
V. Anderson: With respect to programs for the mentally handicapped, the other day we discussed how people with mental handicaps are dependent upon the kind of definition that is available to them for the various services they might be able to access within the program. Would the minister be kind enough to comment a little more about the structure of definitions that are being looked at so that persons with mental handicaps can access the social services system.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The discussion that we had earlier was to do with the definition for handicapped designation for the income assistance program. That same definition is not used for service to people with mental handicaps. In particular, the definition for the at-home program is a criterion that Health has put in place.
V. Anderson: My hearing might not be as good, so I missed the last part of the minister's comment about that definition.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My apology. The definition for the at-home program is a definition that is put in place by the Ministry of Health.
V. Anderson: With respect to the program for mentally handicapped adults and the grants and the contributions of that program, are those grants and contributions given to community organizations who are serving mentally handicapped people or are they grants and contributions for their care and needs within their homes?
I wasn't sure by the minister's last comment if she was saying that the definition for these people is provided by the Health ministry and this service simply uses the definition from the Health ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is yes, to your last comment.
V. Anderson: The area of community projects funding has grants and contributions that come to some
[ Page 7624 ]
$14 million plus. Could the minister share what some of the key projects are that are funded through that community funding grant?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The community projects funding for 1993-94 is $8.56 million. There are some 240 projects, which I'd like to read into Hansard.... If the member has some specific questions on that, I would be happy to share that information as well.
R. Neufeld: Before we start reading over two hundred programs into Hansard, I'm going to take a different direction here and go through a few of the points in the report "Project to Monitor Administrative Error and Fraud" that was prepared by the ministry itself. I can appreciate that the minister has possibly answered other members about some of the questions that were raised in the report from ministry staff. I want to find out exactly what action the government has taken on those issues and whether the minister feels that some of them, those that don't affect the budget too much, are more important than others to try to work on. Maybe we'll start with multiple claims, specifically the issue of mailing addresses, which was brought up in the report, and the identification of people receiving social assistance. What has the ministry done to mitigate those claims?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I reported to the House on a number of different occasions, we have a protocol with the postal service to ensure that cheques are returned to income assistance offices when there is a change of address; they are not forwarded. We have also enhanced our computer capability to alert offices through postal codes where there are duplicate addresses. I identified earlier for the member that the computer software will not allow a financial assistance worker to enter a duplicate claim.
R. Neufeld: I assume that the computer systems are being put in place now. I saw in the budget that there were some expenditures for computerization. Obviously not all FAWs had computers that could handle what the minister is talking about. Is that in place now? Is it going to be in all areas of B.C.?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Actually, one of the difficulties I expressed about the report is that it did not acknowledge the enhancements that were already in place. Those enhancements are in place and functioning well.
R. Neufeld: Is the minister saying, then, that since this report was acknowledged in May, areas that did not have computers are now computer-equipped?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the record, one of my difficulties with the report is that it did not acknowledge the fact that those enhancements were in place prior to the report reporting out.
R. Neufeld: Obviously the workers in your ministry, the people who came forward with some of this information, had some issues with it. I'm sure they didn't dream these up just to make a report for the minister. I'm sure there were issues that had to be alleviated. I'm glad to see that the minister has taken care of it so quickly.
Maybe the next issue we could deal with is lost and stolen cash, which she replied to the member for Surrey-White Rock about. As I understand it, lost cheques are replaced within 24 hours. Is that still the procedure?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Rather than going back to the member's earlier comments and reflecting on the report, I'll specifically answer this question and hope that the member can get this one right. There is a 48-hour turnaround to replace lost cheques, and there is an immediate stop-payment upon notification of those cheques being lost.
R. Neufeld: I can get it right; I can read it out of the report. I don't know if you're disputing what the report says or the question I am asking you. I can only go by the report that was done by your own ministry.
The Chair: Could you address your remarks through the Chair, please, hon. member?
R. Neufeld: Yes. Through the Chair to the minister: has it always been the case that it's 48 hours, instead of 24 as stated in the report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
R. Neufeld: The other issue was unreported earnings that people that work for Social Services had a problem with and how that impacted on the ministry. Could the minister explain what has been done to mitigate the unreported earnings?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have increased the number of tape matches between systems, and we are currently in negotiations to add further tape matches to the work that we already have underway.
R. Neufeld: Excuse me, I was not listening to the answer. Could you give that to me again, please?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, we have enhanced the tape matches with other systems and are currently negotiating additional enhancements. We have increased the number of financial assistance workers on our front line to improve our intake.
R. Neufeld: Another issue that has been brought forward on a number of occasions is the security deposits given out by the Ministry of Social Services: what happens to those security deposits; and how the ministry staff decide whether they should try to redeem the security deposits from the persons later on or
[ Page 7625 ]
whether they just continue to pay them out. Maybe the minister could explain that a little bit, please.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have our policy around security deposits under review. We've been working with the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act, examining all of those options. We're working with community groups to explore ways to improve not only our service to our clients but accountability as well.
R. Neufeld: Another issue is native bands. I've had some expressions made to me that are not specifically the same as what are in the report. Band members will acquire assistance on the reserve, which is, of course, the federal government's responsibility, and if they go into town, they will get assistance within the community they happen to go to. Is there any way this can be cross-referenced, or is it now? How do we deal with those problems? They are prevalent. I know they're reported on in the report, but I've also heard about them, specifically in my constituency.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We currently have agreements with some bands that administer income assistance to do that kind of cross-checking and shared information. As the work continues around the federal-provincial cost-sharing and self-government negotiations, that will provide additional opportunities for us.
R. Neufeld: You say that you have working agreements with some of the bands. Can you give me an idea of how many bands? What's the expectation with regard to having agreements with all bands? I would think that this would be a pretty common agreement to make with the bands. It's not that a band in, say, Fort Nelson is different from one on the Island when it comes to this type of thing. Is there any way that can be speeded up so that those extra dollars can be taken into account?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For your information, Mr. Member, we're exploring all options, and we have made significant progress on the programs we inherited from your government. It's regrettable that your government did not do that work before.
The Chair: Could I remind all committee members to address their remarks through the Chair.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting that the minister is starting up again about what she inherited. Obviously all the minister can do is complain about what her ministry inherited and about what the federal government is doing to the ministry. I think it's time that this minister started to understand and to deal with her ministry.
There's no reason why you can't make those agreements with all the bands in British Columbia so that you can save that money. British Columbians are concerned about the $900 million increase -- 45 percent -- in funding for your ministry over two years. You said yesterday that people are still about 50 percent below the poverty line. I guess people in British Columbia are a little upset. It's no wonder they worry a bit, because they see what the NDP government is doing to job creation in the province, other than creating jobs directly through the ministry, funded by government dollars.
The minister continually talks about Alberta, so we asked for some information from Alberta. Alberta's caseload has decreased, and so has their budget in the last year, by 9 percent. Their budget didn't increase by 20 or 30 percent like your budget did. They're dealing with the same issues you are, Madam Minister.
Some Hon. Members: Except population growth.
R. Neufeld: Except population growth, some say. Well, you can do all kinds of things with numbers. Obviously what this minister can do with numbers is spend a lot of money.
The other issue that was raised in the report was unemployment insurance and the cross-checking of that. I believe that there was something in place in the lower mainland for cross-referencing. Is that going to be done throughout the whole province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, we have tape matches with the UI system. We have negotiated significant enhancements; and yes, they are provincewide.
R. Neufeld: Did you say that they are province-wide now?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me another opportunity to identify that we have significantly enhanced the protocols between Unemployment Insurance and ourselves. Those significant enhancements are part of the work that we have done in this government to ensure the security of the system. Yes, those protocols, that cross-checking, is provincewide.
[4:00]
R. Neufeld: That was another program that was started before the NDP became government.
The other issue I have is ID requirement. What programs does the minister feel she can look at for people to identify themselves when they come to claim social assistance? She reported earlier that 40 percent of single employable people come directly to the office to claim their cheques. What system takes place to ensure that a person is not claiming more than once?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not altogether sure what the question was there. There seemed to be a number of staggered questions that didn't relate. If the member wouldn't mind....
R. Neufeld: What are the ministry's identification requirements for people to get social assistance? Maybe that's where we should start, because apparently some of this report is incorrect.
[ Page 7626 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The ministry policy has upgraded the ID requirements. We now require three pieces of ID. One will be photo ID and one will be social insurance. You can choose from a list of ID requirements: B.C. identification, which is produced by the motor vehicle branch, Ministry of Attorney General, and is a photo ID; driver's licence, which is a photo ID; passport, which is a photo ID; native Indian status card, which is a photo ID; or an original citizenship paper or immigration document with photo. As you can see, the possible IDs that can be used in making up those three pieces are primarily photo IDs.
L. Fox: I just have a few questions I'd like to ask the minister. The first one is that during her tenure, this minister has developed a policy that single parents do not have to seek employment until their youngest child is 19. I want to know what the impact of that policy decision is on the budget in terms of dollars.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have plotted the growth in single-parent caseloads for the last number of years. The rise in single-parent caseloads commenced a full year prior to this government. Keeping in mind that our caseloads are a reflection of the economy and pressures on families, single-parent families are significantly more vulnerable than dual-parent families. We have also estimated on that graph where the policy change took place, and we've seen no significant change in that rise overall. We have looked at it and evaluated the impact of not changing that policy.
For the information of the member, the principle of a single-parent family means that those children rely on a single parent. If that single parent is not there for them, then those children have no one to care for them. In acknowledging that vulnerability, you recognize that there are significant barriers for that single parent in caring for her children and getting back into the workplace. If there is more than one child in the family, there may be a variety of different day care needs, depending on whether the child is an infant or is in school or preschool. It also depends on whether the child is healthy. If a child is not well, the day care won't look after them, and the single parent then has to leave the workplace to care for the child.
A single person on welfare gets approximately $150 a month to care for that child. If that person can no longer care for the child and the ministry supports the child in the home of a relative, it costs approximately $400 -- I'm giving you ballpark numbers. It costs the ministry approximately $600 a month to care for a child in a foster home. Should that child, in the process of family breakdown, be abused or neglected in any way, the price tag goes up. We have children in care who cost as much as $1,000 to $5,000, depending on how damaged the child is. It is a strategy that recognizes the reality of a single parent and the need to care for those children. It is a policy that recognizes the reality that those children face in living in poverty.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm aware that the member is just coming into the House for the first time.
Many of our programs have been discussed, and we have explained very clearly that we have targeted our employment and training programs to support a single parent in re-entering the workplace and in caring for her children.
L. Fox: It's probably so easy to notice who comes in and out of the House because there aren't any government members here to support the minister.
The Chair: The member knows that it's inappropriate to comment on the presence or absence of members in the chamber. Please continue.
L. Fox: I wish the Chair had made the same statement to the minister when she made a similar observation a few moments ago.
My question about the costs of that new policy was very specific. The minister talked about a host of problems with respect to a single parent. I want to inform the minister that I'm well aware of those problems. I deal with people every day who have similar problems, and there is no question that each one deserves some consideration. But I'm concerned about a broad policy statement that encourages a single parent not to seek employment until their youngest child is 19. It is a broad statement that encourages people not to seek employment opportunities because the minister's policy suggests that they shouldn't have to do so until the youngest child reaches the age of 19. We have seen changes in legislation so that young people can now vote at age 18, and they can seek medical services at age 12 without consulting their parents. Those kinds of considerations seem to be totally in conflict with this particular policy. But I want to get back to my specific question: what has that policy cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I extend an apology for my impatience. We've just dealt with this issue with a significant number of other questioners, both from the third party and the official opposition. So I extend my apology for my impatience with your question.
Let me provide, once again, the same information for this member. If I miss anything, the member might peruse yesterday's Hansard to pick up any odds and sods that I've not covered.
As I said, you need to know that we have extended training opportunities targeted specifically at single parents. We've extended additional employment opportunities for parents, and we expect the people who work in our ministry to work very closely together in developing opportunities for single parents. It's widely recognized in our ministry that the longer a person is on income assistance, the more difficult it is for a person to get off. So it is an underlying goal of our ministry to ensure a rapid turnaround and to provide realistic support, realizing that single parents have special and specific needs.
The member needs to know that 73 percent of employment and training offered by the ministry is
[ Page 7627 ]
taken by women, and single parents represent almost 60 percent of income assistance recipients who take advantage of improved earnings exemptions. That means the vast majority of single parents on income assistance are working to support their children as well. It's a reflection of the fact that women's wages are significantly lower than men's, and while men's wages are felt to be reflective of a bygone era when men were expected to support entire families, women's wages have yet to catch up. Therefore single parents and families headed by women are that much more vulnerable. It costs the same amount for a single parent to buy a loaf of bread as it does for a single male. Unfortunately, she's only got a 60-cent dollar with which to buy it.
In addition to that, nearly 50 percent of the participants in the ministry's employment opportunity program are women and 30 percent are single parents. As you can see by the case breakdown and specifics, this is a very motivated group. It supports my belief that single parents, in supporting their children, know best how to meet their needs and take advantage of programs.
The change in policy is a reflection of that philosophy. Rather than thinking government knows best and imposing restrictions that perhaps are unrealistic in the lives of those women and children, we will provide support and services to them instead. It's a recognition that they are motivated and, to the best of their ability, are supporting their children in meeting those children's needs. Those are the statistics that bear out the reality, Mr. Member.
L. Fox: I seem to be getting a very long dissertation, rather than a specific answer to my question. I was not suggesting in any of my discussion that education of single parents is not important; in fact, the contrary is indeed the case. If we're going to address the fact that we have third -- and going into fourth -- generations of families on welfare, obviously education has to be a key tool to stop that trend.
But my specific question, and I'll ask it again for the third time, is simply: what did the policy cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, when the minister changed to a policy that suggests that single parents do not have to seek employment until their youngest child is 19? What was the direct cost to the taxpayers of that policy?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First, I want to say that age 19 is the legal definition of a child. That is the only reason that was in the policy to begin with. There is no encouragement for anyone to stay on income assistance. By the number of programs that we provide and the counselling and support we give people in their attempt to leave income assistance, I have indicated that rather than encouraging people, we are discouraging them, and supporting them in their goals to re-enter the workplace.
[4:15]
My reference to the graph that tracked the caseload was the fact that there was not a significant change when we changed the policy. Over and above that, we are -- as I am sure the member knows -- legally mandated to meet needs. When someone comes onto income assistance they have met an eligibility test. We don't ask them what their motivation was for coming onto income assistance; they simply meet the legal eligibility requirement for income assistance. That eligibility or needs test is not only a legal requirement for this province; it is required to access some $800 million worth of federal cost-shared money. We are legally mandated by our provincial legislation and the Canada Assistance Plan, so we are unable to cost it; it is simply a matter of meeting the legal requirements of the system. I can assure you that while we have tracked the caseload, we have not seen a significant change in direction since the policy changed.
L. Fox: I want to get to one other item. Approximately a month ago this minister, along with the Minister of Forests, announced a program under B.C. 21 which was going to employ people on social assistance. I have found out from people in the Prince George community, who had heard the announcement and went down to apply for one of these jobs, that the jobs were already fully taken. My question to this minister is: out of the 3,000 jobs that were made available in the province, how many were filled by individuals on social assistance?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There were a number of different categories within that program. As you know, it was partnered by the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Forests. Our part in that program was exclusively to serve people on income assistance. Because of the great demand for that program from region to region, there were waiting lists. It was not a challenge for us to fill the program, to say the least. There is a great demand from income assistance recipients to work and to take advantage of training programs. As a government, we are pleased when we are able to provide those opportunities for those people.
L. Fox: I guess this is a case where I ask the question and the minister gives the answer she wants to give. My specific question was: how many income assistance recipients were employed in those 3,000 jobs that were offered through that program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We can get the full breakdown for the member. As I said, it is a partnered program. Of the jobs that were announced for that program, 850 were targeted specifically to income assistance recipients.
L. Fox: Provincially there were 3,000 jobs made available under that program and only 850 of them were offered to income assistance recipients. Given that this program is now a month old, can the minister tell me what kind of turnover rate there has been? I am well aware that silviculture and reforestation has a very short time frame. Can the minister tell us what kind of turnover there has been with respect to those 850 individuals who received those jobs?
[ Page 7628 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: This is a new program. As the member well knows, the programs are just starting up around the province. They are seasonal programs, as the member states, and we have studied them in the past. We know that the programs that have training opportunities attached have a 60 percent success rate over a five-year period. Those people who have taken the opportunity of training enhancement are still attached to the workplace. I think that's a pretty good record.
L. Fox: I have one further question on that. Can the minister tell me what the length of employment is on that program? I understand from the announcement -- and certainly from the Minister of Forests' statements in the press -- that this is a one-time-only program. Can the minister tell me what the length of employment will be on this program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are three steps to the program. Each step is six months. They are graduated steps from bridging right through to contract training. We are hopeful that the training that people obtain at the third level will provide a good foundation for them to continue to be attached and opportunities in their communities for further job enhancement.
J. Tyabji: The issue that I'd like to talk about is poverty, food banks and some of the initiatives that have come forward. I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara has canvassed this at some length, but there are some specific issues. I wanted to start off by saying that sometimes, in the line of questioning with regard to single parents, we forget that the value of parenting to society in large part outweighs what we end up paying through the Ministry of Social Services. I think we should not overlook the value of the people who stay home and work to take care of the children. That often gets overlooked. Somebody has to be paid to take care of them; the best person to pay is the parent. I wanted to start off by saying that.
With regard to food banks, I received a letter which I want to share with the minister about a proposal in the United States for food vouchers. I'll just read it into the record.
"In July 1991 the citizens of Berkeley, California, with enthusiastic help from town merchants, social service providers and the University of California, implemented the Berkeley Cares voucher program. Instead of shunning street beggars or grudgingly handing them cash, Berkeley residents can offer panhandlers vouchers purchased from local merchants. The 25-cent vouchers can buy food, laundry services or bus fares. They can't be exchanged for alcohol or cigarettes, let alone illegal drugs.
"During the first four months, some 26,000 vouchers, about $6,500 worth, had already been sold at Berkeley city hall and by local merchants. The forgery-proof vouchers are distributed by the university's Associated Students organization, the administrative group for the program."
That comes out of the New York Times, in an article by Ira Eisenberg. That seems to me to be a fairly innovative program. Is there anything like that being considered by Social Services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't think there's any magic to alleviating poverty. The strategy our government has in place is one of supporting economic and social partnership, providing support for people toward independence and self-sufficiency. A decent job with a livable wage is possibly the best safeguard against poverty. For those people who are unable to take advantage of the workplace and face significant barriers to full employment, I would hope that as Canadians we would support a social safety net that met people's needs, rather than spending our time in developing innovations aimed at eliminating beggars on street corners.
J. Tyabji: I agree with the minister that there is no magic solution to poverty, and that we are seeing a dramatic rise in the number of people living below the poverty line, particularly families with young children. I do understand that. As is always the case with poverty, when people feel the emotional impact there are associated problems that can lead to substance abuse. I know that there are other programs in the ministry for substance abuse. But quite often people in the community want to participate. For example, we have the food banks right now as one option. I think this is one option that might be considered so that people can contribute in some way, whether through donations of food to a food bank or through the direct transfer of a voucher. I don't see anything offensive in that suggestion. I think that is a constructive suggestion.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
With regard to the social safety net, I want to talk a little about the value of the community in providing some of the "less tangible" contributions to the elimination of poverty, like the feeling of self-esteem that is necessary in combatting poverty. In some communities we've seen innovations like the living library concept. In the central Okanagan region the living library concept has become fairly popular in finding senior citizens who have stories to tell, whether it be from their days as a miner or pioneer or as somebody who contributed to the community. Many senior citizens are fairly isolated, although obviously not all of them. Some senior citizens may have lived a very rich life but, for whatever reason, they are living at some distance from their extended family. The living library concept has helped alleviate their loneliness and plugged them into the community, and it also allows children to have some way of interacting with senior citizens. So these people have been integrated into some of the community activities. There are other ministries where there is overlapping jurisdiction, but I mention it here because I know that this ministry is trying to get at poverty, isolation and the accompanying emotional problems that some people have -- and I know many senior citizens are affected by this. Is the minister having discussions about some of these local community-based concepts -- there are many others,
[ Page 7629 ]
and a few that I'd like to canvass -- with regard to bringing out some of these people who are isolated, like seniors or single mothers who would like to be involved in a community environment? Is the minister having discussions with some communities that are doing these kinds of things?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We support a variety of programs. Starting with seniors, we have a very successful seniors counsellors program. It's a volunteer program where we provide support for seniors counsellors that enable them to meet and interact with their peers to provide support in filling out documentation and meeting seniors' needs. Through employment and training, we have a volunteers initiative program where we recognize that there are people who are unable to take advantage of employment and training programs because they first of all need to be more connected to a supportive environment and to build some confidence before they can be plugged into an employment or training program. There are a number of self-help groups ranging from the adoptive parents self-help groups that we fund, right the way through to a number of community agencies where we support people getting together in addressing their own individual problems in a supportive community fashion.
The only exception that I would take is that there is a vast difference between dealing with issues of isolation and community-building, and addressing issues of poverty. The fundamental principle of poverty is lack of money, lack of ability to support your basic needs. I would see a different strategy in being able to address those issues.
J. Tyabji: I would like to start with the last comment first, and move back.
With regard to the issue of poverty, from my own experience in dealing with people who have had a very difficult time with poverty, I know that accompanying the economic hardship is a sense of loss of self-esteem and pride, and a feeling that one cannot be plugged into the community because one is not meeting the standards of that community. In working with my own community and with people who have had problems with this, I have seen that they do need encouragement to be integrated into the community. Even if the economic problem has been solved, there is an accompanying problem. That is why I am asking if there would be some community-based initiative to make sure that there is some sort of integration where people feel welcome to participate with the community, once the economic part has been met.
[4:30]
The minister mentioned a couple of other things: that there are some programs for senior citizens to meet and interact with their peers, and that in doing so, they can share ideas and assist one another. Are there any programs similar to that where seniors can interact with other generations, specifically with children? Is there a bridging that the ministry is exploring, or is working on, right now?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry is very decentralized. The programs are developed with community participation. The programs vary from community to community, depending on the demographics of the community's needs. So there is quite a variety of programs in place around the province. Many of the community programs that our ministry supports have, as a basis or a philosophy, the support of people in addressing their issues and in the building of self-esteem. As I said earlier about a number of our employment programs, we have, as a principle, built those programs on a desire to ensure success. To do that, we meet people where they are and support them in that transition or bridging toward successful attachment to the workplace. An example of the philosophy that is brought to bear is the investments in place in our ministry for people on income assistance.
J. Tyabji: Since there are many community initiatives, I also know that the ministry is responsible for the umbrella philosophy that will be overseeing which communities are going to be proceeding and receiving funding. I would assume that the minister herself is providing some of the philosophical basis for the programs that are going on, even if a lot of them are coming from the community into the ministry.
With that in mind, would the minister support some exploring of possible relationships where we see senior citizens interacting with children? I'm thinking more specifically. In my riding, for example, there are many single mothers who have a difficult time, as the minister said, getting into the workplace, and interacting. They also quite often, I think, would welcome the opportunity to have the children in a community environment where there are people who like to tell stories. I don't mean to take the debate to something that might be considered trite; I think this is a fairly important issue. In my riding we have about 30 percent senior citizens, and we also have a lot of single mothers. Senior citizens, at least in my experience, enjoy telling stories and young children enjoy hearing stories. Yet there's no bridge to bring the two together. That's been a bit of a frustration for me, because if there were a community network for that, I'm sure a lot of single mothers and senior citizens would welcome the opportunity, and the children would like it. That's the kind of thing that I'm looking at, in terms of a philosophy that might bring people together who don't.... There is no mechanism right now that I can see. That's why I'm wondering if there's any discussion going on or any project like that, or if the minister herself is supporting that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member needs to know that not only do we support community initiative and volunteerism, but we value the contributions that everyone in the community makes towards a healthy community, whether it's with regard to the care of children or the support of families. The initiatives that this ministry funds could very well be a vehicle, and I encourage the member to contact -- if there is -- a Family Place in your community and encourage them to explore opportunities for encouraging senior citizens to be involved with the children that access Family Place.
[ Page 7630 ]
J. Tyabji: Could the minister please share with the House some specific projects with regard to literacy and give us a general overview of the direction of the literacy programs in her ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: As I shared with her colleague, the development of employment and training programs in the ministry meets the needs of people where they are. If there is a literacy problem, we have officers who work specifically with income assistance clients and assist them in meeting their needs to allow for their successful re-entry into the workplace. I thought he was sharing the notes, because he asked the same question.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Right. He should also share the answers with you.
RISE is one of our employment projects. A full 65 percent of the RISE projects are targeted to literacy and life skills. It is a very well-received program that is designed for its flexibility, and that enables our regional offices to deal specifically with the demographics in their community and meet those community needs. Through our RISE projects and other opportunities that we have -- in purchase of service through community colleges, as an example, where we buy seats or spaces for income assistance recipients filling their adult basic education or ESL needs....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the debate. Would the hon. member for Okanagan East proceed?
J. Tyabji: What percentage of the minister's clients would fall into the category of functionally illiterate?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have a case-by-case breakdown. As the member is well aware, I'm sure, the turnover on income assistance is significant. The average stay is approximately six months for an individual on income assistance, so it makes it very difficult. The caseload is changing all the time. It rather dispels the myth that people stay on income assistance for a long period when you understand that the average stay is simply five to six months.
In addition to that, we have a project with the Social Planning and Research Council, SPARC. We have asked them to put a face on income assistance recipients so that we can better understand and target our programs to support the people that we serve. In addition to that, I have met with provincial ministers across Canada and the federal government with an appeal to engage in a significant research project whereby we can better understand the changing face of poverty in Canada generally.
From some of the anecdotal information, some of the case studies that I have seen and the preliminary work with SPARC.... It's particularly interesting to understand, when we're talking about the single employable caseload -- and this is not statistical information but simply a perusal of the cases -- that a disproportionate number of single males have grade 7 to grade 9, and a disproportionate number of single female employables have degrees. It's a startling fact, and I think it speaks to some of the significant barriers that are a reality for women. We know that a woman coming out of university with a degree cannot count on making the same money as a single male with a grade 12 diploma. That, again, is a reality that is reflected in our caseloads.
J. Tyabji: If the minister would indulge me, I don't know to what extent putting a face on the clients was canvassed by the member for Vancouver-Langara. If it was canvassed at length, then I'll look to Hansard. I'd like to ask what kind of profile is emerging in this attempt to develop statistics on the clients? I don't know if the minister heard me say that if it's been canvassed at length, I'll read Hansard. If not, that sounds like an interesting line of questioning to pursue.
Hon. J. Smallwood: At this point we don't have a database that can clearly identify the needs of clients. That's for a number of reasons, such as the turnover in the client base all the time -- that there is that rotation. But we have a number of indicators in the system that lead us to understand those whom we are serving. One of the indicators is the number of people that we sponsor each year for classroom training, many for literacy or ABE. There are approximately 15,000 in a year whom we will sponsor for that classroom training, targeted specifically to those needs.
J. Tyabji: The minister mentioned that she's trying to get some statistics -- "putting a face on the clients," as she said. Could the minister expand on that? Is there going to be some kind of program, for example?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: We see the member from Jurassic Park over there saying "photo ID."
What does "putting a face on the clients" refer to? When the clients come and make the application, will there be some kind of tracking and statistical questionnaire that gives us a snapshot profile? For example, I'm assuming the level of education is being.... You said caseloads. But if there's going to be some kind of computer data -- even if it's anonymous but gender is indicated -- is that what the minister is talking about?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to tell the member that I did appreciate her comments, and I wonder where she's been for the last couple of hours.
The information that we have on our clients is....
An Hon. Member: That's out of order, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Through you, Mr. Chair, I think it's entirely parliamentary to compliment a member on her comments. The fact that I appreciate her involvement in the debate is something worth noting.
[ Page 7631 ]
The information that is recorded on each individual client's file will be very valuable to us in the research that the Social Planning and Research Council has underway. We do not have the technical ability to store all of that information or access it on our main computers at this time. We simply keep client information on the computers that is valuable to the statistical information. It does not reflect detailed information, like their education level or accessing of programs. That's kept on individual files. SPARC is accessing those files and trying to give us an increased snapshot. At any one time it can only be a snapshot, because as I said, the caseloads change.
J. Tyabji: We know that we have regionally based information. When we were canvassing the Ministry of Environment estimates, we found out that a computer system was going to be put in place. There could also be one put in place here so that there could be case-by-case statistical analysis, including the turnover. For example, the computer program could be dated, and the time from when the file was activated to when it was rendered inactive would become a statistic that goes into the regional office. That might be something that the ministry might want to explore -- or is already doing; I don't know. It would be quite useful to have a modem system where the central computer could monitor what is going on statistically and when the files become active and inactive.
For example, in the Kootenays we could see if there were files that were resident longer than some of the files in the lower mainland. If that information is not being gathered now, then it will be some time before we can even get to the stage of gathering it. If a program were set up with a simple sheet filled out for data entry, it wouldn't have to be tied to a person's identity. The reason I'm stressing that is that I don't think we would want to have a computer system that identified a person by these statistics, because that would be too intrusive into that person's life. But if somebody filled it out anonymously and fed it in -- and I'm sure the ministry staff understand what I'm talking about -- then we could have regional statistics. That would be very useful.
[4:45]
I want to canvass the issue of homelessness. The reason that I want to talk about this briefly is that in the Okanagan we have a chronic problem: we are both blessed and cursed by our weather. I say blessed because it is obviously very good for tourism, but the negative part is that in the summertime -- actually, for an extended period of time -- people who are in difficulty feel that they can come to the Okanagan and that it's some kind of Shangri-la where they'll find somewhere to live, and they often don't. The weather keeps them around, and we find that it becomes a very big problem. With the growth that we've had and with affordable housing going down -- our member for Vancouver-Quilchena will probably talk about that a little -- we've had a real problem, as I'm sure the minister is aware. The problem of homelessness is growing.
Are there ongoing interministerial discussions about the issue of homelessness on a regional basis? What is being done to alleviate some of these problems?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to go back to the member's earlier comments to let her know that we are looking at our computer system to centralize assessment and referral information. That option is being explored. One of the things that the member might appreciate is that while this ministry is in the business of serving people to the best of our ability and meeting the needs of communities and individuals with the resources that we have, the reality is that our system has been considerably underfunded for a long period of time. If you go around to the income assistance offices, our clerical support staff will tell you that in many offices we have typewriters instead of word processors. That's a cost to the system, and when it comes down to whether or not we're going to meet individual needs or invest in the system, historically the ministry has chosen to invest in individual needs rather than the system itself.
When we look at the advancement in technology -- and the member was talking about the availability of fairly sophisticated computer technology -- I'm sure we're all aware of the fact that as a society we have invested greatly, not only here in Canada but in North America, in technologies of destruction. I saw in the news just a while back -- and I appreciate the tolerance of the Chair -- where there was a decision to downsize an investment in a space station: $29 billion for a single facility.
The member should be aware that when we're talking about residential placements for children, many of our social workers track the availability of beds by pins on a board rather than having the support of the sophisticated technology, which many other corporations have access to. That's a challenge, I would think, to taxpayers, and a test of how much we do value children in our society. It's often nice for people to make grand pronouncements about children, but they do not follow through by actually supporting those children in ensuring that they have the best service and that the people who work for them have the best available technologies to support the work that they do.
You went on then to talk about affordable housing. We work very closely with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. They are developing a housing policy and have a number of very innovative programs that they will be launching, and we're quite encouraged by that. However, there is as well a challenge to communities to embrace the problem. The problem is not simply one that government owns. It will take a great partnership from different levels of government and active community groups in addressing those problems. If it is a significant problem in your community, I should let you know that our ministry does support hostels and emergency housing. Where communities are welcoming communities to all citizens, addressing even those that are most marginalized, our ministry will actively support their initiatives.
[ Page 7632 ]
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I can't resist going back to the technology discussion that we were having. Once we start talking about tracking cases with pins on a map, I'm a little nervous, because we're in 1993 and I'm not talking about major capital investment. I understand what the minister is saying: that, yes, we have to make sure that the investment goes into the people rather than into the machinery.
I would advise the minister that the regional district, the city hall, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, all of these have adequate computer systems. For example, with the Ministry of Environment, when we canvassed the contaminated sites legislation in the site registry, we had a commitment there for a completely locally based information access system. For Social Services to adopt that, all it would take is one computer in each regional office to modem into that computer system and you're set. It wouldn't be a major investment. I'm not thinking of each social worker being on a computer terminal. What I'm saying is that if each office had an ability to input some data, that would be very helpful in making the ministry more efficient. The ministry doesn't have to invest in an entire infrastructure. The infrastructure is there -- in fact, we have too much of it. You can probably borrow a few computers from one of your colleagues, because they're getting rid of a huge computer system in both Forests and Environment, Lands and Parks. So there is a lot of government surplus. I'm not saying that the money shouldn't be spent on the people; it should. But to serve the people in terms of anticipating their needs and getting some kind of hard data as to what the needs are, I think it would be very useful to be able to set that up.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I want to apologize; I was being indulgent. I was not talking about.... We have a very sophisticated central computer system that tracks eligibility for clients and gives us very good statistical information. When we talked about some of the issues that you are talking about, my response was that we are exploring the technology to track assessment and referral; we are examining that. My reference to the computer was an enhancement for social workers that would allow us to better manage residential beds and placements. In some communities in this province social workers track those open beds by pinning the actual placements on a board. Those are beds for children -- a little different than what you were talking about -- but it gave me an opportunity to feel a little better about my....
J. Tyabji: That's good, because I had visions of social workers in a sort of stock exchange, running around sticking pins on big maps.
Something the leader of the party has been talking about for some time, and which has been kicked around as an idea, is a community information service. There would be a volunteer information base on who volunteers and what they are doing. This seems to be more and more important. Last year in the Social Services estimates I spent some time talking to the minister about the Community Needs Alliance that we not only formed but which we tried to use as a vehicle for advancing the integration of all the different volunteer and community service groups, such as the three different food banks and the church and homeless groups. There are so many groups coming forward in the community, and there is no central registry for them. Many people, for example, will contact my office and say: "Where do I go to help out?" Depending on what they have to offer, It would be very useful if there were some kind of information network that people could access or input to through the library system or through Social Services. I know the minister talked a little about the volunteer initiatives that she had brought forward. Has there been any thought given to some kind of database that would centralize information on existing volunteer networks or existing non-profit societies and ministerial services, so that the community could tap into it?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Many communities do have such a central registry, and we have funded that type of program through a number of different community agencies.
J. Tyabji: I want to ask a little about the day care initiatives that the minister has put forward. I know there are some dramatic changes in the Ministry of Social Services, and I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara has spent some time on this. The one issue that does affect my riding quite significantly is the kinds of programs that are in place for single parents who are getting back in the workplace and need day care. To what extent is the ministry working with the private sector to bring about the proliferation of properly regulated day care centres? There is a bit of a problem there as well.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member may be aware, the program enhancement and development responsibility for day care is now the responsibility of the Ministry of Women's Equality. This ministry has two major programs: the day care subsidy program, through which we subsidize low-income earners and support people on income assistance to provide day care; and special-needs day care. In our employment and training programs we have developed significant support for people going back into the workplace. That includes topping up the subsidy to meet the cost of day care for those who are taking advantage of those programs.
J. Tyabji: The last part of that question was: is this ministry working with the private sector to encourage the proliferation of day care centres? Are there proper regulations? Is the minister telling me that the regulation is through the Ministry of Women's Equality, or is there some regulation through Social Services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Day care policy is spread out among a number of ministries, and we work cooperatively in dealing with new policy directions and enhancement. The responsibility of coordinating those day care programs and responsibilities is with the
[ Page 7633 ]
Ministry of Women's Equality. The Ministry of Women's Equality is actively pursuing a number of options, including the licensing and the standards of licensed day care, so I would encourage you to pursue that line of questioning with that minister.
A. Cowie: Hon. Chair, I would like to follow up with a few questions regarding the ministry's part in social housing, and in housing in general.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: I understand that the ministry does not have housing, but I also understand that the ministry has some joint programs or funding with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That was announced some time ago -- homeless programs and things like that. I would like to know what criteria the ministry has for assisting and working with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on some programs, which I understand do exist.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The announcement that the member is referring to is funding for transition houses and hostels. We have programs for transition houses, second-stage housing and safe homes in the community, but affordable housing is the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
A. Cowie: Perhaps I could get the minister's opinion, however. Personally, I think housing is going to become a major problem in the next ten or 20 years. Whether it's affordable or not, many people simply will not have housing if we go the way we are now. I wonder if the minister has any sympathy for the idea of self-help housing, where people on UIC or whatever can build up credits by helping to build their own home or clean up an old home in order to participate in getting a home.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would encourage the member to pursue that line of questioning with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
[5:00]
A. Cowie: Well, thank you. I can see that I'm not going to get anywhere with one of my favourite programs. I'll try to make a comment, but it may lead to a question.
I have to congratulate the minister for getting programs going for tree planting and those sorts of innovative programs. I think people learn by doing that, and hopefully a large percentage of those trees will survive. I actually have faith that they will, if people have learned the business. I would have thought that people also could learn how to bang a nail into wood or clean up a garden or whatever. In the old days they used to. In the co-op programs -- and I really regret their demise -- people used to do their own landscaping and that sort of thing, and thus contribute to the program and keep the costs down. We'll get off that subject if the minister wishes to do that.
There used to be a program called the Environment Youth Corps, which in some ways is similar to the tree planting program. A youth could earn some money -- and there are a number of programs like this in the States now -- by cleaning up and repairing gardens and that sort of thing. In return, there's a certain contract signed. They have to agree to finish grade 12, and at the end of that time, youths from 17 to 23 -- just to take one example in the States -- would then get a $5,000 grant. In other words, it's trying to give people some structure, showing them how to get ready for the workplace or to find work for themselves. Is the minister considering any program like this?
Hon. J. Smallwood: One of our employment programs specifically targeted to young people is Youth Employment Skills or YES. It is to support young people, often with a significant barrier to employment in that they don't have a previous employment history at a time when so many other people are lining up for jobs. Our Youth Employment Skills is budgeted at $3.13 million this year, where we are investing directly in employment opportunities for young people.
A. Cowie: I won't pursue this too much further; I just wanted to get a general idea. Are those programs allocated to the heavily urban areas or are they more the rural areas where there is greater opportunity on farms and that sort of thing?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The programs are evenly distributed throughout the province. I don't want to mislead the member. While this program is specifically targeted for young people, they also take advantage of the forests enhancement program. They will take advantage of other programs that are specifically designed for the demographics or the geographic location of those communities.
A. Cowie: I will just ask one final question. I couldn't resist making the point about pins on a map. In fact, our office uses pins on maps; we aren't all that sophisticated. Sometimes that's very appropriate. I just want to make the final comment that I understand self-computer stations in government cost about $32,000 each. By the time you've got it set up properly, you very easily could build one housing unit for that. One doesn't necessarily have to plunge into the modern times when it might be more beneficial to give the money to the people who really need it and provide housing.
G. Wilson: I would like to return to a subject I was canvassing with the minister yesterday. One issue that I neglected to bring up has to do with the community service organizations and the contracts that are negotiated with those organizations, particularly the disparity there seems to be between unionized and non-unionized organizations in terms of the rate at which the contracts are negotiated and the benefits that are provided for work of equal value. I wonder if the minister might comment with respect to the distribution of funds to unionized and non-unionized community service organizations, and explain why --
[ Page 7634 ]
if there is work of equal value being provided -- equal wage rates aren't being paid.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a number of discrepancies, and the work of the Korbin commission helped us to identify those discrepancies in the contracting policies across government. The work that we will embrace in this ministry and across government is to deal not only with some of those human resource issues but with some of those wage equity or wage redress issues across that sector. We're quite eager to get on with that job, in partnership and cooperation with that community sector: the employers, the unions and the employees themselves.
G. Wilson: This matter was raised in a letter dated February 19 from the minister to Ms. Norma Collier, president of the British Columbia Association for Community Living. The minister commented that the government's wage.... By way of a preface to these remarks, essentially the minister was commenting that there were a variety of opinions as to how the distribution could be made. If I can just read briefly from the letter, it states:
"...others felt the government's wage equality initiatives should not upset existing differentials between various parts of the social service sector -- e.g. between child care workers, day care workers and workers supporting people with a mental handicap -- or between union and non-union agencies. Some people felt wages should be tied to training, while others felt this was not appropriate.
"We did not feel there was sufficient time to resolve these differences of opinion and develop a cooperative overall human resource strategy before the end of this fiscal year...so the decision was made to distribute them on the basis of criteria that reflected the viewpoints of all parties."
That becomes somewhat confusing. If you have a wide discrepancy with respect to the views that have been expressed, how is it possible to make a decision to distribute the money on the basis of those discrepancies? I don't understand what that means.
Notwithstanding the Korbin commission's work -- and there's reference to that in the final paragraph -- the net result of this policy has been that people who are providing essentially the same service are being paid at very low rates for that service. It seems to fly in the face of the stated policy and objectives of trying to provide equal pay for work of equal value, which I think is a laudable goal. Can the minister comment?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The work that went into the distribution of the wage equity money across government was, to the best of our ability, a consultative process, given the realities of that community sector. It wasn't until the Korbin commission and the project our ministry funded that we were able to clearly understand some of the significant issues in the community sector. When meeting with the groups involved with that process, I think there was a consensus that the system is broken and that the contracting across government feeds the inequities. Each ministry contracts for services given their reality and the availability of moneys in their budget.
There are also discrepancies in the age of contracts. Some contracts were negotiated years ago and built upon, and some new contracts purchase a service and reflect the current market. The whole market philosophy that has been in place for the provision of purchase of service within the community sector has exacerbated the inequities in that sector.
As I said, there's a recognition that there are significant issues there, and it will take a significant and concerted effort and partnership among all of the players to be able to redress those. I believe that we have a commitment from the community sector and other ministries to continue working on that, and I'm optimistic that we will see some progress. We acknowledge that the distribution of the wage parity money last year didn't even begin to address some of the significant concerns in that sector. The commitment I have made very publicly, through the tables I have been working at, is to continue in a cooperative fashion to try to get it right.
G. Wilson: Could the minister tell us if she is in receipt of the Korbin commission report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, the Korbin commission has not tabled the report. I'm reflecting discussions with the community sector and the work in identifying the database for the Korbin commission.
G. Wilson: So I take it, then, the minister has no knowledge of the content of the Korbin commission report at this time.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm reflecting, as I said, the discussions with the community sector and across ministries in identifying some of the issues. I can't enlighten the member as to what the Korbin commission will do with those issues.
G. Wilson: I didn't quite hear the last sentence of the minister. My question was whether or not the minister had read or seen the Korbin commission report at this point.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is no. The Korbin commission has not reported out on the community sector. I have not seen the report because it has not been tabled.
G. Wilson: So with respect, then, to the discrepancy between the union and non-union agencies, what we understand -- for those people looking for a solution -- is that the minister is going to rely upon the recommendations within the Korbin commission report to make that recommendation. Or is that simply going to be a vehicle to try once again to bring the community interest groups together and work out a recommendation? I think there is some ambiguity as to what the government intends to do with that report, once it is tabled.
[ Page 7635 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm unable to comment on a report that has not been tabled with this government yet.
G. Wilson: I'm not asking the minister to comment on the report; more on what the process is likely to be with respect to resolution of this question. The question is: will the Korbin commission report likely be the directive that people can look toward? Because I note that in this letter of February 19, 1993, in the last paragraph, the minister says: "We have asked all involved parties to participate with us in the Korbin commission's review of human resources and contracting issues in the social services sector. It is our hope that the commission will recommend mechanisms for addressing the human resource issues we are all concerned about."
My question is: will these mechanisms be implemented, or is this simply going to be an avenue to try and bring people back to discuss this question?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's altogether premature to comment or to speculate on what the Korbin commission will do. I am optimistic. I'm hopeful that it will provide a good basis from which government and the community can move to redress these issues.
The commitment I have given to the community sector leaders I have spoken to is that our ministry will continue to support the work and that the distribution of wage equity, human resource development issues, training, etc., will be done in a consultative and collaborative way with ourselves and other ministries of government.
G. Wilson: So is it safe to say, then, that the minister does not feel in any way bound by the recommendations within the Korbin commission report?
The Chair: The member continues.
G. Wilson: That is a legitimate question. There's been a lot of money spent on a report commissioned to make recommendations to government to try to deal with a lot of inequities. A lot of people are going to be significantly affected by the recommendations of the Korbin commission report.
[5:15]
Many people have contacted the opposition and have asked what the opposition's position might be with respect to the recommendations. Obviously we haven't seen the report. The minister has indicated today that she has not seen or read this report, to date. I think that it's a legitimate question to ask, given the magnitude of the report and the impact it's going to have on the people affected by it, whether or not the minister feels that she is bound by the recommendations within it.
The Chair: The member has received a response indicating caution on the part of the minister. The Chair can accept the member's queries, but I would caution the member that the minister may not wish to respond.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize your ruling that the minister was on her feet and about to make a response. It would be useful if we could hear from the minister on that question.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll simply reiterate my earlier comments. I'm optimistic that the work that has gone into the Korbin commission will provide this government with a good foundation from which to move forward. I have been very actively involved in the commission. On a couple of different occasions, I met with people who contributed to the Korbin commission, and the commitment that I made to them publicly -- and will continue to make -- is to support a collaborative and cooperative process with the community sector and other ministries of government.
V. Anderson: I have a couple of things from the previous discussion. The minister indicated that there are pieces of ID which people can select in order to identify themselves as they come for services. One of these is a driver's licence, which of course many low-income people do not have; another is an aboriginal identification band card, which only some people have; another is a citizenship card, which is fairly expensive -- it's about $50 or more; and another is the B.C. identification card, which is more readily available.
Is the minister prepared to help low-income people with that $15 or $20 -- whatever it is -- to get the B.C. identification card? As we've suggested previously in this House, I think this would be helpful; it would not only be identification for welfare services but for many other purposes as well. Is the minister willing to help people financially to purchase a B.C. identification card?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The answer is yes. It's a policy that's been in place in the ministry for some time.
V. Anderson: I didn't quite hear the last part of it. Did the minister say that the policy has been in place for some time and people can apply for funds to buy a B.C. identification card?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: I know many people will be delighted to hear that. I thank the minister for clarifying that particular undertaking.
Going back to the budget process for a moment, under community support programs, one area we didn't get to is institutions. Would the minister please clarify for us what institutions are referred to in this budget of some $43 million? Are these private institutions? Are there collective institutions? Just what is undertaken or covered by the area of institutions?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry is responsible for Woodlands, and we have taken over the funding for Glendale, which is non-profit.
[ Page 7636 ]
V. Anderson: I couldn't hear, but did you say Woodlands and one other institution?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Our ministry is responsible for two institutions. One is Woodlands, and we have just recently taken over the responsibility of funding Glendale, which is a non-profit society.
V. Anderson: In taking over those two institutions, have you changed their purposes or plans? Why have they been brought under this ministry at this particular time? What is the significance of that? How many people do those two institutions serve? What is the difference between them?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The ministry has always been responsible for Woodlands. Glendale serves people with mental handicaps, primarily. The mandate or the delivery of service has not changed with those two facilities. There are currently about 345 residents between the two institutions. The member is well aware, I'm sure, of the government's commitment to deinstitutionalization and community living for persons with mental handicaps, and we are actively supporting the transition of those people from institutions into the community.
H. De Jong: It's always delicate when you deal with the issue of people in need. At our local constituency office we get calls from time to time, as I'm sure do all constituency offices. I specifically recall a call that I received one Saturday afternoon from an individual who was staying at one of the local hotels. He said: "I have no money. I have no food. I've been to the welfare offices and couldn't get any help. I went to the food bank and was denied food." He painted a pretty dark picture in the initial stages, but then I started asking him a few questions. I asked him how old he was, and he said in his mid-thirties. I asked him if he had worked for many years. Yes, he had worked for many years and always made good money. But he claimed that he was totally broke and without food, something that I had sympathy for, as I'm sure would all members in this House.
I asked this fellow whether he had looked through the local newspapers, and he said that he hadn't had a chance to buy one. I told him: "They're only 50 cents, and I'm sure you could get the weekend paper, which is an advertising paper, for nothing." I said: "Just look for one area where there are always people wanted for chicken catching at night." That activity is always done at night, for certain reasons. His immediate response was that if the wages were below $12 it would bring his UIC payments down, because he had earned more money in the past. But he was determined to get help from the social welfare system. Because he was definitely without food, I said to him: "The only alternative that I can see for you, sir, while you have this two-week waiting period for UIC payments, is to get a job, whether it be chicken catching or something else, to get you through this period of time."
Surely a person who has been employed for 16 years and has always been well paid -- or so he said -- must take some responsibility to provide for a couple of weeks when he may be out of a job. I would like to ask the minister whether, from a practical point of view, I answered this individual correctly.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's very difficult for me to answer that question. Rather than trying to deal with eligibility questions himself, I would encourage the member to refer his constituent to a ministry office. The ministry office will make the decision around eligibility and the qualifications for your constituent in accordance with the law of the land.
H. De Jong: At the outset of his conversation with me this individual said that he had tried all avenues with the Ministry of Social Services, so there was no point in telling him that if he went to some social services office, they would have an answer for him. He told me that there was no help for him. In that situation I could only advise him to look for work.
On another matter, hon. Chair, I was wondering whether there has been a noticeable increase in the last six months of younger employable people getting into the welfare system.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would encourage the member -- I'll try to give him the short answer -- to review Hansard for the longer answer, because I've given the longer answers on several different occasions. Yes, there has been an increase in singles qualifying for income assistance. It's reflective of the economic realities in this province. It's far more difficult for single people to support themselves than it is for a couple. We've seen the standard of living in this province over the last decade remain fairly stagnant, and the standard of living for families has been maintained only through dual wage earners. That means that single parents or singles find it more difficult to support themselves.
H. De Jong: Hon. Chair, I'm glad the minister recognizes the deteriorating economic climate. I'll give more detailed information as to the calls I've received. Again, it was on a weekend. It was from a person who had been employed for a number of years in a local manufacturing plant. The manufacturing plant employed about 24 or 25 people. I suppose that from time to time there are some areas of clarification between an owner and the employees, which happened in this case. Apparently there was a little bit of friction with a couple of the employees, and they couldn't understand why the employer couldn't give them what they wanted. So without the owner's knowledge, they went and organized for union certification. There were some members working there who were not in favour of that, but apparently the majority were. They organized without the business knowing what they were doing, and all of a sudden the notice of certification was issued. Apparently the owner got wind of it, and he shut down operations on the day of certification. He was then ordered by the Labour Relations Board to open up again and put these fellows back to work. But shortly after that, he closed down and laid everybody
[ Page 7637 ]
off -- including those who had had no desire to go into the union.
[5:30]
This person obviously must have some UI coming, but the point I would like to make is that it is this kind of thing which takes away from the continuous economic growth and economic strength and economic well-being of a community. In a community such as ours, where there are many non-union operations -- be it manufacturing or sawmills or whatever else -- I am afraid that these people will have a very difficult time finding employment. Hence, these people will end up on the welfare rolls of British Columbia, which is very unfortunate. Even though we are not in Labour estimates, it will undoubtedly have a dramatic effect on the Ministry of Social Services and on the taxpayers of British Columbia.
V. Anderson: One concern that I want to raise is that, increasingly, we have persons with AIDS in our community, and, of course, they are often unable to work. I know that the medical concerns are dealt with through the Ministry of Health, but is there within the Social Services ministry a special awareness and support of these people? I have visited with some of them, and their situation is really very critical in the areas of medical needs, housing needs and their personal support systems. I was wondering about the Ministry of Social Services in respect to this particular group of people.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We work very closely with community groups, and the AIDS groups are no exception. We have been working with AIDS Vancouver in developing a training program for our staff so that they can be more sensitive to the needs of people with AIDS. As I'm sure the member is well aware, an AIDS patient with medical documentation will qualify for handicapped designation.
V. Anderson: In applying and qualifying for the medical certificate for the handicapped, does that also enable them to get special dietary and medical prescription assistance as part of that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: They get additional medical coverage, but their dietary requirements are included in the extra allowance that people with handicapped designations get.
V. Anderson: Referring back for a moment to Woodlands and Glendale, the minister indicated that they have just recently taken over Glendale. I presume those are both included in the budget. She also mentioned that they were planning to phase out these institutions. Is phasing out Woodlands and Glendale fairly imminent? Into what kinds of substitute situations are they planning to move the people of Woodlands and Glendale, if I understand her properly?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The deinstitutionalization policy of the previous government was announced in 1981. People from Woodlands and Glendale have been placed in the community over that extended period of time. We will continue to do that and we'll work with those people on an individual basis to meet their needs in that community placement. We have a target closure date of fall 1996.
V. Anderson: In moving people into the community, are we working in a multiple process where some people will be able to go with some support into individual private housing? Is the ministry providing group homes for these persons as they move into the community? As the minister is aware, moving people into the community without available facilities has been going on for some time. There's a real concern about the inadequacy of many facilities that people with mental handicaps are forced to live in now.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The ministry has a very good reputation, and it is accepted by the community advocacy groups and parents that no one has been moved from Woodlands without a prior placement, a supported group home and support services available to that person. The people remaining in Woodlands, and Glendale to the same extent, I suppose, have very complex needs. For that reason we will take the time necessary to ensure that those placements are there and appropriate, as the ones before them, and that the investment is made on an individual basis.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response and the assurance that it gives to those who are moving out of Woodlands and Glendale. I would ask about persons and organizations with whom they might be working. For persons who are now living in the community in inadequate housing in many parts of the lower mainland and other parts of B.C.... In many parts of the lower mainland we have heard concerns about inadequate housing for people who have moved out of institutions in the Surrey area, in the valley and in Vancouver. Is there a task force working to identify those people, to which those people might come to get the same kind of assurance that the people who come out of Woodlands and Glendale are getting?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The responsibility of this ministry is to people with mental handicaps. Our deinstitutionalization policy and support for community living is based on a recognition from community groups, such as the B.C. Association for Community Living. The reputation and support the ministry has in their initiative are considerable. It will be for those specific clients that I will account for the ministry's role.
V. Anderson: I'd like to move into a variety of areas around adoption. I'd like to begin with that and ask if the assisted adoption program is still in operation for persons who are having difficulty in conceiving and giving birth to children. I wonder if that program is still in place, as it was reported in the last annual report we had available, the 1989-90 report. I wonder if that program is still available. People have asked about it. If the minister is unsure of what I'm talking about, I could read from it just to bring it to her attention.
[ Page 7638 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: For clarification, is the member referencing special needs adoptions?
V. Anderson: Let me give the reference. "In March 1990, the minister introduced the assisted adoption program which provides financial assistance to families who otherwise would not be able to adopt children who...may develop a physical, mental or emotional disability. Adoption assistance may include maintenance payments or payments for the services directly related to the special needs of the child until the child reaches the age of 19."
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have the program now. I'm sorry, what was the question?
V. Anderson: The question is: is the program still in operation, what is its present purpose, has it expanded, and what is the present assistance available to families in this regard if they adopt?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, the program still exists. It is growing gradually. It is demand-driven. As I'm sure the member is well aware, we're one of the few provinces in Canada that actually fund self-help groups for special needs adoptive parents. We have a very good relationship with the community in support of adoptive parents as well.
V. Anderson: A question comes to mind in regard to this. I'm personally aware of a case in which a family was in the process of adopting a child who had a physical condition that might have been very expensive throughout the whole of that child's life. The arrangement in that particular province was that you could go either through the foster care route in which the physical health care of that child would be undertaken, or you could go through the adoptive route and the ministry would offer the same care as they would have through the foster care route. Otherwise, it could have been financially impossible for the adoptive parent to go ahead with the child in that particular physical condition.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, you've adequately described our program.
V. Anderson: Your program will undertake the same physical care for the life of the child until age 19?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: I know recently there's been the Hague conference on adoptions. Could the minister update us on what the current situation of this province is in its work with the Canadian national adoption desk -- which is also reported in that annual report -- to support people in international adoptions?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the member has already acknowledged that the Hague convention was finalized in the end of March '93. The consultations will be among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, as soon as it's determined that there is support to ratify that Hague convention on behalf of Canada. So that work is finding its way through the system at this time. If the member has some specific questions about this province's relationship with the national desk or international adoptions, I'd be happy to answer them.
[5:45]
V. Anderson: I'm not sure if I have a specific request. Perhaps I could ask it this way: if a family in British Columbia is interested in international adoption, can they approach that through the provincial adoption branch of your ministry? Will you facilitate their connecting with the Canadian desk in the international country? What is the process that a family interested in that should follow to be part of the system?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Any family can use the resources of the ministry, in contacting our ministry to receive information and support, ensuring that they have the appropriate contacts.
V. Anderson: Are adoptions from the United States under the same undertaking, through this international and Canadian desk, as adoptions from other parts of the world?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: The minister said, during a question period that she would be happy to discuss the question of private and other adoptions during the estimates. So I have remembered and come back to her now on that. Perhaps she would like to give us a current picture of where this is at, before we enter into the discussion. I'm not trying to put her on the spot particularly, but it is something we must deal with.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member is well aware, an extensive legislative review is underway. The conclusion of that review and the policy work being done are subjects of future policy, and I'm unable to comment on anything further than that at this time.
V. Anderson: Without going into the policy or legislation which may come, I would like to talk about the review process because it is ongoing. We have received -- and I know the minister also has received -- piles of documentation and letters from persons, who feel that they have been left out of any review process, and who are concerned that legislation will come forward without them having been part of the process. As the minister is aware, they are birth mothers, people who have adopted, people who are planning to adopt and people who work with adoption. There seems to be a very consistent feeling in the community that the minister's and the government's promise to consult with people before legislation comes forward, which has been undertaken in most cases, has not been undertaken so far in this particular case. Hopefully
[ Page 7639 ]
there's some assurance that it will, before legislation comes forward.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have consistently made the commitment to the adoption community that any development will be in full consultation with them. To remind the member, it was the approach of this ministry to set up those adoption consultation tables that started the flurry of concern. My commitment stands. We will continue to discuss issues of policy development around the legislative review and the legislation with all affected bodies.
V. Anderson: I have to highlight that we have heard directly from a number of people who were at those "consultation tables" about adoption, who feel very strongly they were anything but consultative tables. I need to report this, because they've been very strong and very adamant in saying that consultation really did not take place at those tables. But at the same time they're saying that they want to come back to consultation tables before anything is brought forward. They would also like some assurance that those consultation tables will be taking place, not just in one or two but in a number of places throughout the province, because the people whom we're hearing from are all over the province. They would very much like to be a part of it. They have stressed in their documentation that they want to work with government and be a part of the service. They want to trust and feel confident in what is happening because they feel it's so important and necessary to have that trust. If anything happens without that consultation and without that trust, their fear is that even if it is good legislation, the mistrust will have broken it down and it won't work. It has to have the trust of the community and the people involved.
I want to stress that there has been strong feedback from the people who have been involved in the consultation to urge that there be renewed consultation before anything happens.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Not only at those tables but in this House, I have made a very strong commitment to open consultation. Those tables are on going. We continue to meet with those tables on a number of policy issues, and we will continue to do that.
For the member's information, let me say as frankly as I did to those people whom I met with some months ago what my concerns are. My concerns were reflected in the national report that indicated that the majority of birth mothers are under 18 years of age. In this province, without prior approval of the superintendent, we cannot ensure that the mandate of the superintendent for child protection is being carried out and that those children are being placed in safe and appropriate homes. What we're talking about here is children having children. Surely the ministry has a responsibility to ensure that in the competition for the 400 infants in this province, where we have some 2,000 potential adoptive parents, that the rights of those birth mothers, of those children, are not undermined but are indeed protected. With that concern in mind, and I'm sure that the member himself would agree, there is a role for society to ensure that both the infants and those children have their rights protected and their interests and their safety assured.
The work we are doing in the legislative review of adoption services and in consultation with that community will be very challenging. This is a very emotional issue, and the need to form a family is fundamental for many of us. The work our ministry does in consultation with a number of players in the adoption community must be sensitive; it must recognize all of the players' needs and ensure that a balanced decision is made. I bring that commitment to this task.
R. Neufeld: Just to go a little further on the adoption issue, I appreciate, understand and have some knowledge about adoption procedures -- finding parents and that type of thing. I have received a lot of calls and letters with regard to the minister's statement that private adoptions will be banned. I have had some correspondence with regard to people in the field who felt the same as the member for Vancouver-Langara, that they were not contacted about the change in the adoption procedures. While I don't have a problem with the regulations being updated, changed and put into perspective for the nineties, I do have a problem with eliminating private adoptions. People feel that there should be that alternative, and they have commented on it very strongly.
The minister said that she has a review panel that is going to look into it. I would have appreciated it had we completed that whole process before the minister made the statement about banning private adoptions, because that pre-empted what any panel is going to come up with. Obviously they're going to come up with recommendations to the minister that correspond to that statement. How can we consult with people around the province on the issue of private or public adoptions? There are pros and cons to both; they both have imperfections. How can we go out and ask the people who are concerned and who have been involved to react and give their feedback on it when the minister has already stated that she does not want to have private adoptions?
The Chair: Order! Before recognizing the minister, I would point out to the member that notwithstanding the fact that there has been discussion around this topic, it does involve future legislation, which is not appropriate in Committee of Supply.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to set the record straight, we've been talking about regulating private adoption.
I also recognize that the time is upon us. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 7640 ]
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the House do recess for 30 minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I call Committee of Supply and advise all members that in Committee A we have the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and in Committee B, the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 54: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
R. Neufeld: Before we broke for supper, I had asked some questions around the issue of adoption. If the minister wishes me to reiterate that question, I will.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
R. Neufeld: The issue is, of course, the review process that has been going on with regard to adoption and what changes are to be made. I stressed to the minister that I have no problem with having both government and private adoption. I also have no problem with changing the regulations around private adoption to tighten them up and bring them into line with the nineties, if that is required. When Bill 73 was brought forward back in 1990, the current minister was then the Social Services critic, and I believe the opposition at that time, which is the government now, voted in favour of that bill and the regulations. I wonder how the minister would respond to the fact that she is on record as saying that she does not believe in private adoption, yet she set up a community review panel to find out not just about private adoption but about a lot of other things to do with adoption regulations and procedures. Does the minister feel that you can really get consultation from the communities and people at large? I've had numerous letters and lots of phone calls from people who are really concerned about the way the ministry is going with regard to eliminating private adoptions. How does the minister answer the fact that when setting out the committee to find out how people involved felt about the issue, she sent them out with the note that she did not believe in private adoptions and they should all be done through government?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, to acknowledge the points that I made just prior to adjourning, the discussion has been around the regulation of private adoption. On the point that the member made in reference to the previous government's bill, Bill 73 eliminated the business of adoption in this province. It did, however, create a model that I expressed concerns about when our government voted on Bill 73, and I have continued to express those concerns.
[6:45]
I've already articulated on a number of occasions the principles that I bring to this discussion, including my reference to the protection of birth mothers and infants. Those principles will drive me, and they are the commitments I will bring to the discussions with the communities. For people who disagree, I take it that the member does believe there's a role for the superintendent to ensure that the best interests of children are protected. I appreciate that comment. However, I think you also need to understand that a decision has not been made. We will continue to consult with interested groups and hope that those consultations would be positive ones. The letters and the calls that we've received from our 800 number have helped us a great deal in identifying issues. We've invited that communication, and people have very openly provided us with their concerns and their feelings on the issues of adoption. Many of the calls and letters we have received have reflected the concerns of adoptive parents, and a very, very small number of communications have been directly from birth mothers. That concerns me, because I do think their voice is underrepresented in this discussion.
R. Neufeld: Did I correctly understand you to say that in regard to doing away with private adoptions, you did not receive very much communication from birth mothers? The minister said that that bothered her.
I have a news release. I don't think the minister answered me, or I didn't understand the way she answered me, about the elimination of private adoption and how that works in the consultative process that you say you're going through now and have been going through. You announced in February that a review panel was going to continue looking at adoption services. In fact, the news release is February 25, and I'll just read the second-last paragraph. The community panel dealt with kinship and openness in adoption and those types of procedures, but also: "'The regulation of private adoptions will be emphasized early in the process, as preliminary consultations indicate a pressing need for additional controls. I am not yet persuaded that the licensing scheme proposed by the previous government is appropriate,' Smallwood said." I appreciate that, and I think that's exactly what the minister said back in 1990. According to my notes, she had some reservations about those regulations.
I have no problem with that news release going out, and leave it be. But in April, a short time later, a letter was signed by the minister that emphatically said: "Placements arranged by private facilitators will no longer be an option. We're still in the process, I thought, of trying to get information about how people feel. If
[ Page 7641 ]
the minister did not feel that she received enough information from single mothers, then maybe the ministry should have gone out there to find out from those single mothers why they didn't respond. Who knows why they didn't respond? Maybe it was because the children that they put up for adoption they wanted as part of their life. We don't know. That's up to the mother and how she deals with it, and she may not want to deal with it by going to the ministry and talking about what transpired 10, 5, 2 or, for that matter, 40 or 45 years ago. They just may not want to deal with it. So maybe you're not going to get the openness you want from birth mothers unless you go and ask them specifically.
I find it unfair that the minister has basically told the panel that there will be no private adoptions, when we see that around the province there is a tremendous amount of people who want private adoptions left the way they are. They want both private adoption and adoption through the ministry. There's nothing to say that the ministry would be perfect in the way they do it, and there's nothing to say that the private adoptions would not be perfect. I said before that they both probably have their imperfections. But there is no reason why we couldn't continue that same way -- it's worked for a long time now.
The minister talked earlier to me about "government knows best." This is a very good example of where all of a sudden government feels that they know best. I take exception to that, along with all the people who have contacted me about the issue of private adoption. The minister did not answer my first question. How can she have a consultative approach to find out what people feel when she lays down issues in a letter that says placement arranged by private facilitators are no longer an option? With that statement she pre-empted the committee. How do you go out and consult with people when you tell them beforehand how a very large part of the issue will be determined?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think we need to get back to Bill 73 -- you very clearly identified the piece of legislation that was brought in by your government -- and acknowledge that we are not starting with a clean slate. The discussion and the work stems from the work that was initiated by your government. That piece of legislation, for all intents and purposes, would see adoptions being facilitated through a series of licenced agencies. I'll get a clarification of the actual provisions of Bill 73, just to remind myself. That bill actually eliminated private adoptions, with the exception of those licensed agencies. It was an initiative that this whole House voted on. There was a recognition at that time that there was a need to regulate; that the unregulated system that presently exists was not serving the interests of all parties; and that, indeed, due to the lack of regulation, they were unable to ensure the protection and safety of the infants, in particular, as well as of the birth mothers.
As I said, we started our work with some of those decisions already having been made, looking to move that whole process forward. The discussion as to the business of adoptions -- and I think we have to understand the difference between what a private adoption is and what the business of adoption is -- was already decided with your legislation: you eliminated the business of adoptions. Private adoptions can happen in a number of different ways: through the facilitation of a friend, a doctor or a clergyman. If someone is part of a cultural group, as part of their culture and practice there may be facilitators in the community who help put birth mothers and perspective adoptive parents together. In some people's terminology, those are also considered private adoptions. I don't have a problem with that; I have a problem with the business of adoption. I agreed with that bill you brought in, as did our caucus, and we voted for the elimination of the business of adoptions. The discussion at this time is: where do we go from there? If we have eliminated the business of adoptions, what will it look like to ensure those values, which I believe we have in common in this House -- that is, ensuring that there is openness, if that's the choice, respecting that for some birth mothers and some adoptive parents that might be the right model, and for some it might not be the right model. Respecting and facilitating that choice, as well as recognizing the needs for a lifelong commitment from the families to ensure that some of those community standards -- in particular, when we're talking about open adoptions -- are going to present real challenges. As a society, we don't really know what that is going to look like. There have been some real changes about the perceptions of how families relate to each other and the ability to bring together a birth mother and an adoptive family with that infant to see where that relationship is going to go.
There are a number of issues that we have to talk about with the adoption triad and with people who have expertise in this field, as well as with those many people who have been impacted by adoptions throughout their lives, whether they be adult adoptive children or people who simply know someone who has adopted a child and who have those strong emotional ties. I have consistently tried to identify some of the issues and some of the realities. The legislation was passed in this House two years ago, and we need to move on to ensure that we can protect and facilitate the best interests of children and protect and facilitate the best interests of those other two players in the triad.
There is a very emotional story in the Times-Colonist today. I think that's a good indicator. It reinforces the call for regulation, which, I believe, is basically accepted within the community. Very few people are saying that they disagree with the government regulating private adoptions. If we can agree on those definitions, and on the reality of the business that Bill 73 eliminated, then what we're talking about when we're defining private adoptions.... There are different definitions. We are not talking about the business; we're talking about personal, individual and private connections.
R. Neufeld: I've tried to stay away from what will be within the legislation, but the minister talks about open adoptions and those issues. Yes, I believe what the minister says. I have no problem with changing the
[ Page 7642 ]
regulations to bring ourselves into the nineties and beyond. I stress that we have to be careful, and I'm sure the minister feels that way also. I accept that. I have no problem with putting regulations in place that protect the child, the mother and the families involved. Because it's more than just the child and the mother; there are the parents of the mother, and so on. They all have to be taken into consideration, and that's not an easy process. That is a very difficult process. I appreciate that, and I know those are some issues that will be coming forward in legislation.
[7:00]
But again, you talk about the business and other parts of adoption. I don't have staff to help me interpret the 1990 regulations to Bill 73, but I do read in your letter -- and I'm going to get back to that again.... We're going out to consult and bring adoption regulations forward. We're asking all kinds of people who are involved about adoption procedures: how they feel about it, whether they believe in both private and government adoption or just in one or the other. Why would the minister pre-empt that committee with a statement that placements arranged by private facilitators will no longer be an option? Why would we do that before we had received the feedback from the committees that are specifically trying to get that information? That was the original question. I didn't want to get into the issue of adoption because I understand that it's coming forward later on, as the minister has said, but that particular point bothers me. Why would we do that? Why would the minister put herself in that position?
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm simply going to reiterate what I've already said. Bill 73, the bill that your government brought in and that we all voted on, eliminated the business of private adoption in this province. The bill has not been proclaimed, the regulations have not been circulated, but the vote happened in the House; and that bill, the bill that your government sponsored, eliminated the business of private adoptions. It is with that assumption that I continue the work and say that we're not starting from square one. There is some respect for that piece of legislation, and we're moving on to discuss the different aspects of where we go from here. Is the member saying that he disagrees with his government's bill? I recognize that the member was not a member of this House at that time so he did not personally vote for the bill. That may be what he is saying, so maybe we have a disagreement on that point.
However, I've made the commitment to the adoption triad and the consultation tables, and we will continue to discuss. I made the assumption that we were starting from that premise and not from square one; some decisions had been made by the previous government, which were supported by this House. Rather than re-creating the wheel, we had an opportunity to start from some of those principles and take some of those next steps. The opportunity to discuss policy development around the legislative review is one that I welcome, and we are actively engaged with the community in that discussion. As I said, we will not act until we have had the opportunity to ensure that we have the support of the community to take that next step.
R. Neufeld: As I understand it, the legislation does not do away with the business of adoption as the minister stated. In fact, she said she wasn't sure if that's what transpired with this bill. Obviously she's not completely sure about it, either. But it has not been given royal assent in any event, and I believe that is because there was some discussion around the regulations that are in that bill. I assumed that when the minister was going out to talk about regulations on adoptions, she was dealing with all adoptions -- private and government. That was the issue; the issue wasn't that we did away with private adoptions in 1990, because I don't think we did. I will check, but if the bill was not given royal assent, and if that's what it says, then obviously we didn't do away with private adoption. Obviously the minister was under a different impression when she voted for it. My notes say that the member made it clear, however, that she did not support further privatization of adoption. That seemed to be the issue around the discussion on Bill 73. Of course, I didn't read Hansard on all of Bill 73, simply because I didn't have time, I guess.
I am telling the minister that I agree with both types of adoption. We must be very careful how we go about it, for the interest of the child, the mother and the families involved. That's what I want to get on the record to the minister: I am very concerned that that's not where we're going and that we are going to do it all through government because government knows best. I don't agree with that.
V. Anderson: This has been a useful discussion, because we've come up with information which will be new to most people within the community. The first bit of information is the last that was just discussed. The minister, without saying so, as far as I'm aware in anything I've ever seen in this discussion, was using Bill 73 as a starting point. It would have been helpful for people to know that was the starting point; they could have had a common base. As far as I have heard from anybody, this is the first time in any of these discussions I've heard Bill 73 used as a starting point. Since it wasn't proclaimed, it wasn't in public operation and didn't affect anything that was happening at the time, so it was written off by most people as just something that was there. Like a lot of proclamations that go back 20 or 100 years, it was one of those bills. She also talked about regulations that were made, which also weren't circulated or publicized, as I heard her say. So the base point from which the minister is operating is quite different from the one from which the community is operating.
Also the minister begins to define "private." In any of the material that I've seen, the minister has not made the kind of definition of "private" that people in the community are using. So "private" has different meanings to the minister and to the community. In any
[ Page 7643 ]
of the consultations, people have been talking about different things. Even if the consultations took place, because there was not a common understanding of a very fundamental language question, those consultations, even if they were well attended, are of no value, because people were talking about different things. Today the minister talked about private adoptions as those which are being done by a private person who is in a registered business operation. That is one area of private adoptions. Another area of private adoptions, which most people also thought she was referring to, are non-profit societies. These are not a business but are members of the community or, in some cases, of a religious organization who have come together and formed a non-profit society to serve people within the community, in this case birth mothers and adoptive parents. In everything I've seen so far, most people have taken "private" to mean both of these definitions, and probably others as well. When they hear the minister saying "private," they have taken her to mean at least both of these. There has been a miscommunication, so consultation has not taken place on the same ground. I think that's very unfortunate, and it has probably created a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of mistrust that didn't need to be there if these things had been cleared up prior to this.
Hopefully, now that these definitions have come to light, the consultations can be reviewed. We can begin again with a fresh deck and come together with a common understanding. In all of the representations we have heard and in the hundreds of letters we've received and responded to, there has been, without exception, common agreement that there needed to be regulations in place. I'm sure most of those people did not know that there were written regulations that were never used. We need to get that information out there. Maybe some people are aware of it, but not the general populace who are responding. Basically they've been responding to the press releases.
Even in the information sent out by the minister on April 23, these definitions are not there. I'd like to read from the cover sheet of that, because I think it sets the context in which we're now meeting.
"A mailing list regarding the adoptive legislative review has been established. It is made up of people or groups who made adoption-related submissions to the community panel and people who have commented recently by phone or in writing on any aspect of adoption legislation. We will send you bulletins, discussion papers and other relevant information as the review progresses. We expect the review to be completed by October, so that the results can be submitted to the Hon. Joan Smallwood, Minister of Social Services, by the end of 1993."
That is the context in which people have received information from the ministry. Then they hear that prior to October 1993 legislation will be coming in. I'm not talking about whether it is or isn't, but people become concerned when they have been advised that they have until October to make submissions and then hear that prior to their submissions going in, decisions will already be made. If you go inside the document, you hear the same discussion, and the definition of "private" that we've discussed today is not there.
Today, as I have understood her comments, the minister has talked about a review panel. Who is on the review panel? How is it made up? What kind of processes does the review panel have in place? How do people interact, and where will they have the opportunity to interact with that review panel? I will stop there for the moment. I think there is the question of definition and the question of the baseline of the act -- as the minister has referred to it today -- that was not proclaimed and the regulations that were unknown. Those are two basic considerations. The third consideration is the date in October before which people had to make representations to the minister. I asked about the review panel.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me try to clarify. As our estimates go on, it's beginning to feel a little bit like one of those games where you communicate with someone and someone else hears it differently; as that person states what they've heard, that becomes part of the communication. That is really indicative of the complicated challenge we have before us in communicating some rather sophisticated issues, and this is no different.
Let me state for you one more time that Bill 73 was voted on in this House and passed, if not unanimously, I believe it was very close to a unanimous vote of the House. With the concerns that I expressed about the setting up of licensed agencies -- and the member acknowledges that concern was raised -- Bill 73 formed the basis of the discussion within the adoption community, and there was a commitment from the ministry at that time to continue that dialogue. So this isn't new to that community. By passage in the House, Bill 73 was part of their basis of understanding. While the ministry has worked on the development of regulations that support Bill 73, it has not concluded that work. There is no set of regulations in support of Bill 73, so let's get that one off our list.
The community panel reference is to the work done in the past year regarding the family and children's services legislative review. We had asked because we were, as a government, challenged with your legislation: okay, now what do you do with this piece of legislation that has passed through the House? We asked the question of that community panel. They simply referred back a couple of principles in their legislative review. Those principles are quoted in those letters about open accessibility, etc. We have taken their guidance regarding those principles. That's simply it.
[7:15]
The panel has completed its work. We have now taken up the challenge that was presented by the community panel in a comprehensive legislative review of this adoption legislation. It is important, and I think the challenge was far more significant than I understood. Dealing with an issue that is so fundamental to all of us may take longer than I had hoped. It may take us all to do some reality checks on what we're hearing to determine what the communications truly mean and start from that base of understanding to be able take those next steps forward.
[ Page 7644 ]
To make my point once again: I believe it is important work; it needs to be done sensitively. I will meet that challenge, because I believe there is consensus out there about the need to protect those most vulnerable in this transaction. I believe the government is committed to ensuring, to the best of our ability, that we fulfil our legal mandate around child protection. We will go from there, we'll do that in an open, consultative way, and we'll hope that we can all learn in this process to understand what our communications are. When we don't understand, then we should at least be able respectfully to check those understandings; and if and when we disagree, we should be able to do that respectfully as well.
V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for her positive response. I do agree heartily that we are not hearing and understanding the same things, and that's true in the community at large. Different people have different understandings; and until we get clarity in understanding, we dare not move ahead.
I want to put this in context by saying that I am an adoptive parent. I went through a government system, not in this province but another. We had monthly meetings -- my wife and I separately and together -- with the staff of the ministry. We had meetings to share concerns with other people who were in the process of adopting, and we had meetings with people who had already been through the process. We had no choice whether we went through it or not. If we wanted to adopt, we had to go through that process. We already had two youngsters, and this was the third. We soon discovered that we had a lot to learn. The process was extremely valuable, and from our experience I would recommend it to anyone. I'm very aware of the necessity of the process. We had home studies and personal studies and the opportunity to examine ourselves, which made us, I think, far better parents and enabled us to deal with circumstances that came up that we might not have been prepared to deal with. Then we had the waiting after that, so we know the period of tension as well.
Because of that, we also know -- not that there wasn't excitement or emotion when our other two children were born -- that there was equal, if not more, excitement when the call came for us to go and see the person who would become our daughter. All of those days were equally important. We can still remember how the whole community came down the block when we came home, because it was a major event. Not very often did people get into the hospital to see the arrival of a new child, but they got into the house to see the arrival of this new child. Over the years, we've never forgotten that special event; it's been a part of our lives ever since.
I understand the importance and significance of this from being involved. I'm delighted to hear that the minister will work with all of us and others in clearing up the miscommunication. I also understand from her that there is a ministerial process but no review panel currently in place. That also is a clarification, because I think at this point people would welcome a review panel to look at the full legislation. All of the people we have talked with have said there must be new regulations and guidelines, and they have many ideas of what those should be.
There is one other thing I would raise. The minister talked about the mandate of the superintendent with children under care who were born to mothers under 18 and about the responsibility one has with under-age persons. It's a good point, but it's the first time it's been raised in our various discussions. It's one that needs to be raised and needs to be seriously considered.
On the other hand, there are people over 19 who also have children up for adoption. So you have a variety of processes. One is with children under the legal age, and one is with persons over the legal age who are in a different position and who won't come under the mandate of the superintendent per se. You have a variety of responsibilities there. To acknowledge one without the other misses the point that those have to be taken into account.
I think the regulations need to be reviewed not only with regard to the process but also with regard to the process any mother has to go through after giving birth, before their child goes for adoption. I know that over the years there has been discussion -- and we've been part of that -- about the fact that it was felt that a mother should not see the child after birth because they would bond and it would be difficult to break that bond. But there is the equal -- and I think stronger -- argument that that bonding needs to take place for the mother so that the process can be completed, and then the mother can make her decision about what to do beyond that.
There are a variety of circumstances regarding the timing -- such as is currently in the newspapers: when is final final, and for whom is it final? -- for a birth mother to make what is probably the most momentous decision in her life and then to back away from it and have the opportunity to review it again. How long should it be before that is finalized for the adoptive family? Should it be one month, two months, six months or 12 months? We went through that ourselves. We even had to work out a legal will as we travelled, so there would be coverage before that was completed. We had to deal with that or our daughter could have been in jeopardy if we had not worked out a special will for that particular occasion. I think that all of these things, which probably weren't even considered a few years ago, need to be in modern legislation.
I come back to the question of the difference between a private business and registered licensed agencies, as in the Ontario act, for instance. That's the direction in which they have gone, and many people would be very happy if the ministry were to go in the direction of privately licensed, regulated acts. At the present time, because of the circumstances, it would be good if the ministry would be prepared to say: "Okay, let's start from here. We'll all get together and share our ideas." There should be a panel set up.
I had a concern regarding an information letter the minister sent out. It talks about the best interests of the children, and we all agree that they're first and foremost in every consideration. But it then went on to say in the latter part of that letter, signed by the minister herself:
[ Page 7645 ]
"Round-table discussion meetings, with invited participants from the community." That sounds suspicious. Unfortunately, we have a number of those, where a select group of people are invited. That sets up an uncertainty and a distrust. It seems to me that particularly at this stage, it's not enough to have invited participants, at least with the connotation that they were selected participants. As with all consultative processes, there needs to be an opportunity for anybody who has a concern or an interest to be part of that consultation and to know that they are freely heard.
I agree -- as my colleague in the third party has -- with the minister's comment that she had not heard from birth mothers and that this is a concern. Being realistic, I don't think we will hear from birth mothers unless there is some private method of communicating with them so that they are invited to respond in a private way, because they are in a very delicate and difficult situation. Some who have not kept their children may have something to say, but they are not normally going to come to a public meeting to say it. They are not necessarily going to write an open letter, nor are they necessarily going to respond to an ad in the newspaper. If we really wish to hear from birth mothers -- and I hope we do -- we will have to get the information out to them in a very direct way so that they have the opportunity to respond privately, with their wishes being heard but their privacy being carefully maintained. They will need to know that that's possible.
We have agreed with the minister that it is a challenge of greater significance than any of us initially realized. Is the minister prepared to find a new way of enabling people in the community to become part of this review process, so that when the legislation is revised as a total package, they may come forward and be dealt with in the context of that situation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: A number of the tables discussing different aspects of policy -- and the member touched on a number of them, highlighting how complicated this issue truly is -- are proving to be very productive. The working relationship is very positive, and I would not want to undermine that. I have openly invited people -- in just about every way I can think of -- to be part of that process by submitting their concerns and their recommendations. People have actively taken us up on that challenge. We have received a fair amount of very positive input into the work that is being done. We will continue to encourage that kind of input, at the same time recognizing that the family and children's services panel process was a very good one, involving a number of community players. That panel developed a very strong consensus document that will help us in the work we are doing. I think a number of people have raised concerns about extensive public consultation. There has been a real call for government to get on with the job.
[7:30]
We are trying to balance those two aspects as well. That balance will help us in the next year in developing the review. We will look for opportunities to be as inclusive as we can within our resources. I am sure the member would recognize that some of the suggestions he has put forward are very expensive suggestions and that we also have to manage taxpayers' dollars.
R. Neufeld: The minister talked about perceptions. Just so that I understand it -- I want to be clear in my own mind before I leave here -- the panel has recommended to the minister that private adoptions are no longer allowed. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, that is not correct. We'll find the exact quote for you. That's one of the reasons I'm really glad there's a Hansard, because you can go back and actually see my words.
What I said was that the community panel was charged with the work around family and children's services, child protection. Because of the bill that was brought in by your government and passed in this House, and the challenge that our government had to act on that bill, I asked our community panel to recommend the next steps, using your legislation as a basis for those next steps. When the community panel came back -- I believe you quoted the reference in your letter -- it recommended that the term "adoption" must be defined as a "lifelong transfer of custody and care of a child while retaining kinship" -- this is the reference in your letter -- which is a "bond between the child and the birth family." Also: "Adoption, as defined in this report, must be incorporated into new legislation following a thorough review of all issues related to adoption. This review and integration must not delay the new legislation."
What the panel did, on my request, was put forward some principles and ask us to review the adoption legislation in and of itself, and we have used all of those factors: the recommendation from the panel around kinship and care; their recommendation that we do a comprehensive legislative review; and the recognition that we are not starting from square one, because two years ago this House unanimously passed legislation that was brought in by your government and which eliminated the business of private adoptions.
R. Neufeld: I guess that's where we differ. I've been reading some of the amendments to the Adoption Act, and the amendments that I read don't say anything about the elimination of private adoptions. That's where I'm having the difficulty. I cannot see where we eliminated private adoptions, which the minister keeps saying that this bill did.
Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member will go back to my earlier comments, we have to define what we're talking about when we talk about private adoptions. In Bill 73, private adoption is not the private facilitation of adoption; it is the business of adoptions. What Bill 73 does is very clear. For the member's information, I would be more than happy to have our staff sit down and walk him through Bill 73 so that he can understand what that legislation did. It may not have been perfectly clear on a perusal of Hansard, but the legal ramifications of the bill are quite explicit.
[ Page 7646 ]
I would hope that as this work continues, as it obviously will.... As the Liberal critic indicated, there are a number of significant issues that we haven't even gotten to. That is the work of the next year, and I hope the member will be a part of that work.
R. Neufeld: I guess we could belabour this point for a long time. What the minister tells us now is that Bill 73 and the amendments to the Adoption Act eliminated private adoptions and the business of private adoptions. What I'm trying to say is that we have to have both. There has to be adoption through the government -- I have no problem with that -- and private or business adoptions, or whatever you want to call it.
I think we're getting a little mixed up around words here, because your press release in February '93.... You didn't state anywhere in it that the business of private adoptions was eliminated; you didn't state that at all. What you stated was.... I'll read into the record again the second-last paragraph: "'The regulation of private adoptions will be emphasized early in the process, as preliminary consultations indicate a pressing need for additional controls. I am not yet persuaded that the licensing scheme proposed by the previous government is appropriate'...." I understand that, but it does not say anything there.... You did not say anything to the public until sometime in April, when all of a sudden everybody got surprised by the fact that we were not going to have private adoptions anymore. That's what has brought the issue forward. That's when the public at large got concerned about it.
The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale rises on a point of order.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, the words last spoken by the member were in the future tense. The rules of debate in estimates clearly provide for review of existing legislation and the administrative authority of the minister. Speculation on what might be future policy or future legislation is out of order. I would request that the Chair rule such debate out of order so that we can deal with the current estimates of the minister.
The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a point of order.
V. Anderson: The hon. member who just spoke was probably out of the House when we agreed earlier that we are not talking about future legislation in this discussion. We are talking about present communication, and understanding what communication the minister has provided to the community, and the community's understanding and response to that. When we talk about Bill 73, we are talking about past legislation, not future legislation. Certainly it is in order as long as we stay away from future legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, committee members, for raising those points. Discussion of legislation, past or future, is out of order in this venue, but discussion of issues around that legislation and events leading to committees, reports and those kinds of things are within the purview of this minister.
The member continues.
R. Neufeld: I am certainly not trying to make it difficult. I am not trying to get people to rise on points of order; I only want to get the issue settled, and I don't want to be beating it around till midnight.
When the minister says that we've done away with the business of adoption.... The letter from the minister that was written in April clearly states that.... It's questions and answers. Question 1 is: "What are the ministry's plans for regulating private adoption?" I don't have any problem with regulating private adoption -- none whatsoever. In fact, it has to be. The answer is that at this point plans have not been finalized and legislation not yet introduced. Generally, the ministry's proposal is as follows: Adoptions will no longer be arranged by private intermediaries. That tells people that private adoptions are gone. The minister says that this took place in 1990. The press release from February 25 and the letter from the minister the following April do not match. Something is missing. I don't understand why we're going through this now.
All I want to know is whether the committee recommended to the minister that private adoptions be eliminated. She has commented that they did not recommend that, so this is obviously then an issue that the minister has committed to on her own. It's her own government's direction. It has nothing to do with legislation back in 1990. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't know that there's anything over and above what I've already stated on the record that I can help the member with. I would encourage him to review the comments and to take me up on our offer to brief him on Bill 73 and its implications. I do take the point that the communication of February 25 did not refer back to Bill 73, but there was an understanding, and it is reflected in the Q&As that the member quotes from. That's simply the only other contribution I can make.
I've entertained the line of questioning in the interests of providing information and hopefully to move this debate forward to resolve what I believe we both have in common: the regulation of private adoption in the best interests of the infant. I don't believe we have any disagreement on that front. We will be able to explore that in the next while with the work that we have underway. I hope the member will be good enough to take me up on the offer for the briefing and refer to the extensive questions and comments that I've put on the record tonight.
V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister. I would be glad to move ahead. I would just like to put on the record the full comment about adoption that is in the report and that the minister gave the recommendations from so that we might have the report as a place to start. It's from page 99, under the definition of adoption as the lifelong transfer of custody and care of a child while
[ Page 7647 ]
retaining kinship, the bond between the child and the birth family:
"Under current legislation, adopted children are considered to be 'as if born to' the adoptive family, meaning that the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the birth family are permanently extinguished. Our new definition of adoption is significantly different from that which now exists in the Adoption Act.
"We have concluded that the notion of 'as if born to' is not realistic in these times. We want to redefine the word 'adoption' from its current use as a term equated with permanent ownership. Our redefinition of adoption is consistent with our understanding of kinship, which is based on the principle that the bond between children and their birth family and heritage cannot be extinguished. It is consistent with the direction of current adoptive practices, which are tending toward increasing openness and access to information.
[7:45]
"We recognize that the issue of adoption is a high profile and sensitive family issue. We heard that adoption is not a single entity, that is, the placement of newborn infants. Adoption encompasses a range of options along the alternative care continuum. Adoption includes the placement of infants, special needs children, older children, and children from other countries. In all of these situations, we believe that kinship is never extinguished. However, within each adoptive placement, the degree of contact shared between birth families and adoptive parents will be based on needs and capacities of all parties. A common element of all adoptions must be the right of all parties to receive full information and the recognition of the need to preserve and honour a child's birth family heritage.
"Our new definition of adoption will require a transition phase, a comprehensive review of adoption options and practices, new legislation, and considerable public education. (Access to information issues are addressed in the chapter 'Access to Information.') As well, the implications of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, due for ratification by Canada in 1993, should be reviewed by the provincial government.
"Therefore we recommend that:" -- and these are the two recommendations -- "(6) the term 'adoption' must be defined as the lifelong transfer of custody and care of a child while retaining kinship, which is the bond between the child and the birth family; (7) adoption, as defined in this report, must be incorporated into new legislation following a thorough review of all issues related to adoption. This review and integration must not delay the new legislation."
That's the end of the quote, and it gives a broader picture. I appreciate the discussion we've been able to have on this issue. I thank the minister wholeheartedly for her contribution to what has been a fairly intensive discussion.
I'd like to move on for a few moments, if I might, to the area that we have not covered: services to seniors. We're coming from one end of the spectrum to the other. I'm interested, because if I remember rightly, last year when discussing the services to seniors we discovered that there was a decrease in finances to seniors' organizations. We find somewhat the same happening this year in, at least part of the category. I would like to just ask the minister if she could perhaps comment briefly on the increase of $66,000 in the program management services to seniors that's not in that increase within the ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That category, like many of the others, is the annualization of salary increases and benefits to staff who administer the program.
V. Anderson: I'm trying to line up these categories. The seniors supplement has remained identical, if I understand here, and I wonder why. It would seem to me that with the change in population, there would be a change in this.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There is one thing I'd like to reference for the member. You commented earlier on in the day about our "The Challenge of Change" paper, and on page 6 it actually identifies the group we're talking about. It says:
"One group whose vulnerability to poverty has actually fallen in the past decade is seniors. Largely as a result of improvements in retirement savings, pensions and other government benefits, the number of low-income seniors fell from 20.5 percent in 1980 to 8.2 percent in 1990. In this case, community advocacy and government action have worked."
That's a good story as to how, when we put our efforts together, we can actually impact poverty for significant groups of people in our society. The impacting of poverty for seniors is reflected in the reduced demand for this supplement program.
V. Anderson: Is the seniors' supplement a grant to supplement seniors' income? Is that what is referred to here? Is this a grant to seniors to supplement their income?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: I was wondering if you might comment on the bus pass program, because it has decreased. I'm curious about that, because this is a very important opportunity for seniors to travel.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That change is an adjustment on the cap. We pay only a portion of the bus pass, as I'm sure the member is aware.
V. Anderson: The minister has mentioned that seniors counselling groups are available. This figure has remained the same, and she talks about appointing new seniors' counsellors and extending that program. Is that seniors counselling program within the mandate of the same budget?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
V. Anderson: As we've discussed quite frequently, there has been a fairly large increase in the budget within the ministry. The larger part of that is in income assistance. I think it is important for people to realize that not all increases were in income assistance, because there were significant increases in other programs as well. I want to acknowledge that.
[ Page 7648 ]
There were significant increases in staff. Could the minister indicate how many increases in full-time equivalents took place in the ministry over the last year? How many she is expecting to add through this budget in the coming year because of the number of different programs and expansions of programs that she is contemplating? I realize that it's significant and am curious to know what the total number is going to be over last year. What is projected for the coming year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member would like to refer to it, the blue book last year and this year actually accounts for the FTE additions. The blue book will provide you with that information. You will see that on page 187 it shows both last year's and this year's.
V. Anderson: So you're indicating that we've increased from 4,553 to 4,765 -- an increase of 212 people. Does that include all of the people that you've indicated would be coming on board to deal with adoption legislation. Earlier you indicated that there would be new staff and new processes for that legislation. You indicated, I believe, that there would be some 134 or 135 financial assistance workers coming on board and that there would be new fraud investigators as well. Are all of those people in fraud investigation, the increases in the other ministries plus the adoption program all included in the 4,765 FTE's? This would indicate that it will be very significant.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, to reference some of the allocations, some of those allocations are new FTE's, as indicated, but some are reallocations within the ministry. We have reprioritized the workload for some of our staff and, as the member is well aware, we are in the process of reviewing all our programs and our administrative structure. We are looking at workload, and we are looking at supporting people in working differently and more effectively. Through that we have an ability to reallocate some resources within the ministry, as well as some of the additional FTE's.
V. Anderson: One of the concerns that people have is balancing off. Are there some areas in the ministry that have been reduced or altered in order to free up funds and money for other directions. The minister had indicated last year that there were areas that would be reviewed. We really didn't see any of that, but usually if one is making rearrangements or reorganizing -- and I know there has been, at least at the top level -- then there are some processes that would probably be dropped or drastically altered in the ministry. So it is not continually an add-on, it is a replacement.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member is very familiar with our ministry and understands that for a number of years it hasn't been a direct service provider. Whether it's through our income assistance, eligibility qualifications, the work of our child protection workers that is mandated by legislation or our work with people with mental handicaps, much of the work is done through the purchase of services from community groups. The point of raising that with you, hon. member, is to acknowledge that this is a bare-bones ministry. There isn't a lot to cut or restructure. There are not a lot of savings to be had in administration. We are, however, looking at a number of fronts where we feel we can reallocate within the envelope. We're looking at how we work. There are a number of administrative reviews underway that are looking at the caseload and at the ability to free up staff so that they can work more directly with our clients rather than being monopolized by paper.
[8:00]
In addition to that, the other reference I would want to make to you is that in the work that we've begun with the community sector in the contracting practices, there may be a savings there as well, since the administration of those contracts and the time committed by staff are considerable. So we're looking at ways of streamlining that. We're looking at a number of avenues to not only manage the program but ensure more efficient and effective management of the resources that we have in place in the ministry at this time.
V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. minister, for your cooperation in this. I would like to indicate that we have finally come to the end of our questions for today.
Vote 54 approved.
Vote 55: ministry operations, $2,836,823,835 -- approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 33.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 33; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I understand that this is just supposed to be a simple amendment at this point, but I want to clarify one distinction that perhaps is relevant. In section 2, the definitions at the present time define discrimination. As we look at this addition to section 2, I want to point out that this particular amendment not only adds to the meaning of discrimination but also adds what discrimination does to other people. So a double meaning is put in this particular action. I want to highlight that significant
[ Page 7649 ]
difference, because we are defining two sides of a meaning -- what it is and what it does. I'm not disputing it, but I want to make sure that this implication is understood: we are describing not only what discrimination is but also what it does. I think it's important to highlight that so that we have it in our minds when we're looking at these particular definitions.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'd just like to note that the section now encompassed speaks about discriminatory practices, and in fact it is a discriminatory practice in this amendment to publish hate literature or hate activities.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
V. Anderson: A number of clauses and phrases are introduced in this amendment which were not there previously. None of them are defined in the definitions section. This is part of the concern that we raised in second reading. We'd like to take a look at each of these words to get some understanding for the record of what they mean in the minister's mind.
In our case, we have referred to a number of dictionaries and have come up with some different meanings. I think it's important, because they were put forward in a human rights act to have particular meanings. Since they are not defined, and since they have been added for a particular purpose, we would like to ask the purpose of each of these words. Then we might understand what reason or purpose these words or phrases gave to the act and why it was inadequate without them. For instance, what connotations might the human rights council take from these particular words that have been added? It's not enough to say the courts or somebody else will tell us what it means. If they have been added with the kind of forethought and planning that we assume they have, you must have definite meanings for these words. So I'd like to take them one by one. Perhaps when the minister does get up to speak, she would like to say again what the purpose and relevance of this amendment in section 2 is, just so we put it in context. Then, as far as definitions go, if she would like to begin with the word "issue" in the first line of 2(1)....
Hon. A. Hagen: I think it might be helpful for the member if I answered his question broadly, because that's the best way I can deal with the question to which I think he's leading. I gather that the member wants to have some sense of section 2(1) of the amendment. Where we use words like "publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed," we are encompassing in those words all forms in which discrimination or hatred or contempt could be expressed. So it is intended to provide that kind of encompassing definition.
V. Anderson: If I understand the minister rightly, she's not prepared to give a particular definition of "issue" in putting this forward. Is she talking about a magazine issue? What is the definition of the word "issue"? That's our first question. I have concern if there is no definition, and we don't understand what the word means. To have been inserted in this clause, it must have a meaning.
Hon. A. Hagen: I think the words are fairly straightforward in our language: to publish, to issue, to display. I don't think those words are very difficult for most people to understand. Indeed, as I noted, we were looking at how we could encompass the various ways in which discrimination or hatred and contempt -- the two elements we're dealing with in this amendment of the Human Rights Act -- may be expressed.
V. Anderson: Perhaps, since the minister is not going to define the word "issue," let's look at the word "statement." That's a new declaration within this act as well. What does she mean by "statement"? We have many kinds of statements: financial statements, personal statements, statements of organizations. What kind of statement is the minister referring to in this category?
Again I come back to the fact that common meanings of commonly used words are not necessarily the ones that stand up in a court of law, particularly when we're in a multicultural community. In our preceding debate here on another issue, we discussed the word "private." It had quite different meanings for the minister, those of us who were meeting with her and the public who were listening to her. We might have said that the word "private" was well understood, but it had completely different meanings in the discussion we just completed within the last 15 minutes. We're bringing up that kind of issue because without that clarification we have been on different sides of the question, when in reality we probably agree. But we don't know that. So I'm asking about the meaning of the word "statement."
Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I could again note that there are a number of words: "statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation." Again, these are intended to encompass the means by which persons or groups may, in a public way, demonstrate or expose a person to discrimination, hatred and contempt. There is a broad range of definitions here that we believe will cover the various ways in which those expressions may, in a public way, be manifest and may be ones that could come under this amendment in terms of individuals or groups being hurt by such discrimination or expressions of hatred or contempt.
[8:15]
V. Anderson: Since you're going at it broadly, could you perhaps explain, for the benefit of us who are curious about this, why the definitions -- and we haven't risen to argue with them at this point, because presumably they were discussed and understood when they were passed previously -- were not considered to be adequate. Why were the other statements in there not adequate? If the previous statements were not
[ Page 7650 ]
adequate, I'm sure I could come up with a list of other words that could be added, such as "portray" for instance -- I don't see the word "portray" in here -- which would broaden the definitions even more. What was it about the previous bill that was inadequate and indicated that it needed to be extended?
Hon. A. Hagen: As legislation is developed, we always look at ways in which the intent of the legislation can be broadly encompassed. The terms I have referred to -- "statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" -- are intended to serve the purpose of this particular amendment that we are now examining. By providing a broad range of descriptions to ensure that public actions that may be determined to be discriminatory or to expose an individual or group to hatred and contempt, we believe that the intent of the legislation can be served. So we have used that broad range of descriptions to ensure that the intent of the legislation can be served.
V. Anderson: Sometimes when we're trying to clarify legislation, we don't broaden it; we narrow it down so that its purpose and intent are clear and concise. If we want it to be clear and concise so that other people interpreting it know exactly what we intended, we use words that are precise; we don't keep adding words one after the other just in case we missed out some of the preciseness. That does the very opposite of what I would think the minister wants to do. This Human Rights Amendment Act is to protect human rights. Part of that protection is to specifically define what one is attempting to do, not to broaden it out in an ever-increasing manner.
If we follow the minister's rationale, we should come back next year and add another half a dozen words to it. I can't follow that rationale, unless there are reasons for each word that is put in. Some people believe that when you name a child, you would have a better understanding of that person if you add the names of the grandmother, the grandfather, the sister and the uncle, and keep broadening the name of the child, particularly if each of those names has a meaning within that culture. In a multicultural society, I don't think we should just keep broadening it, because if we are going to do that, we would need to begin to put in some multicultural phrases that have specific meanings in the languages of the cultures from which people come. So I would want to challenge the minister on broadening in order to get intent, as against narrowing it and being concise for the intent.
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me see if I can help the member, hon. Chair. The scope that I'm talking about is an encompassing scope. It may help the member if we were to consider, for example, that all of us have seen printed material, perhaps a single sheet of paper on which were very vile, discriminatory statements or statements likely to expose people to hatred or contempt. Those statements on a piece of paper we would certainly believe need to be encompassed in the intent of this legislation. So by using that word for something that is maybe neither fish nor fowl in the usual sense -- it may not be defined -- we have, in fact, a coverage for material that you and I, hon. member, would agree we would want to see encompassed by the legislation and by the intent of this amendment.
V. Anderson: I think some of the people in our community would like to read Hansard when they're talking about fishing or whale hunting, because the discussion is that you put out the biggest net you possible can so that you catch everything in sight in order that you might catch the particular fish that you want. Whether you catch a whole bunch of other things that don't belong in there is irrelevant. I don't think we're in the position of wanting to put out a broader net to catch everything that goes by, because that's simply not what we have in mind. So I keep asking for definitions. I'm not able to get a definition of "issue," and I'm not able to get a definition of "statement." Could the minister give me a definition of "publication"? We have already in the act, prior to this, "or other representation," and since that catch-all phrase was not broad enough to catch all, as it was intended, presumably, in the original act, you had to add "issue," "statement" and "publication." Could you indicate what was being missed out by the phrase "or other representation"?
Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to just turn the question a little bit. I understand the member's quest, but I think it would be important for us to remember the intent of any of these words. If we're talking about a statement, publication, notice or sign, a symbol or an emblem, there's a high threshold before any of those terms is relevant to this amendment. Those words are used when we are talking about anything that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate, anything that is likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt. So we're talking about a very specific written, symbolized, signed object, statement, or whatever we could call it, that is intended to offend in ways that are noted in this legislation or in this amendment.
I think it's good for us to recognize that fundamentally we come back to the intent of the amendment, which is to provide a remedy where groups or individuals are subject to any of these actions that do offend dignity and expose them, as the language of the amendment says, to discrimination, hatred and contempt. I want to emphasize again that the threshold for determining that is a high threshold, and it is governed by our Charter, by jurisprudence, by decisions of the court and by our common law.
A. Warnke: I listened to the answer given by the minister when the member for Vancouver-Langara tried to get some clarification as to what is included in the definition of "issue." The term "issue" is not to be taken lightly here, because it can actually refer to how literature -- or anything else for that matter, as outlined here -- is distributed. Because the answer is vague and ambiguous, I would like to know what issue includes. What does the minister have in mind when the term "issue" is used?
[ Page 7651 ]
Hon. A. Hagen: There are people who publish, and there are people who issue. The publisher of hate literature may not, in fact, be the person who issues it or puts it into the broad public domain where it could then be subject to consideration under this amendment. It's a word that could apply to statements that are, in fact, not captured by the usual language about something that is in print. I've referred on occasion to the kind of broadsheet that is issued -- disseminated -- to the public and which in its subject matter may be something that could be captured under this amendment. It could then be a subject for consideration because it intends to discriminate or to expose to hatred and contempt.
A. Warnke: As I listened to the answer given by the minister, I was especially struck by the comment that it's a word that "could" be applied to statements. The minister also referred to "something". Here are two additional words, if you like. "Could" has a flip side to it: "could not." "Something" is not something of substance. Here again we're into the vagaries of the word "issue," which is introduced in the legislation here. It really comes back to the point that the member for Vancouver-Langara was trying to get across: that the term "issue" as it applies here is not defined in the proposed legislation. It needs definition. In the answer that the minister has provided, using words such as "could" or "something," and referring to an example and so forth.... Even the minister, who is right before us now, cannot come up with a precise definition of what "issue" includes. Could the minister be more precise?
Hon. A. Hagen: In all of these matters we're dealing with content and with the threshold related to discrimination, hatred and contempt. So in any of the words that the members are seeking to have elaborated, we are indeed talking about content or representation. We are talking about a high threshold and about something that in and of itself is going to be examined by the human rights council if in fact a complaint comes to them about anything that is published, issued or displayed -- "any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" that may come under this amendment.
[8:30]
A. Warnke: In that answer the minister has referred to something called a high threshold. I would really like to pursue now what the threshold is. Obviously the minister, by referring to the term "high threshold," must have some idea as to specifically what the threshold is. What is this high threshold? Where is the threshold that defines the line? It's not enough just to say: "Look, let's just have a broad definition. After all, we've got good intentions in this bill. Yes, it's very difficult to define precisely what all of this means, and so forth. But let everyone be assured that we have a high threshold that will be defined by the human rights council."
I think it is incumbent on you in this kind of legislation, where you're really toying around with some fundamental principles, to define what the threshold is. Could the minister define exactly what she means by the term "high threshold"?
Hon. A. Hagen: I know that my comments are going to come back again and again to a very common theme. The threshold for this legislation is an indication of discrimination, hatred or contempt. As we have noted in some of our discussions earlier, these words are deemed by the courts to be precise enough to provide very excellent guidance to the human rights council as it considers these matters. Again, we noted earlier that there are frameworks for human rights legislation, as there are for all acts of legislatures. The Charter, common law and decisions of the courts provide that framework for us in debating this legislation and also for the human rights council as it deals with matters that may come before it not only in relation to this amendment but in relation to all of the discriminatory practices outlined in the legislation to which this will be added.
A. Warnke: To illustrate the kind of complication we are faced with here, there is another word on which I would appreciate it if the minister could be precise: "indicates," after 2(1)(a). What is the minister intending when "indicates" is used?
Hon. A. Hagen: It's a pretty clear word to me, hon. Chair.
A. Warnke: Could the minister say that once again? I was distracted.
Hon. A. Hagen: More loudly, it's a pretty clear word to me.
A. Warnke: Well, here's the problem. Maybe it's clear to the minister, but if this legislation were to pass, it would read that no person shall publish or issue a statement that indicates discrimination. In other words, it could be used in a variety of ways, and because it's used in a variety of ways, the meaning is quite vague. "Indicates" is related to the word "indicator." Suppose a journalist or a reporter wants to indicate that discrimination exists; in other words, tries to mention that a particular activity exists, and as a result of relating to that, indicates discrimination. It's indirect rather than direct. "Indicates" itself is not a direct, active word. It's an indirect and roundabout way of explaining something, so that when a person reads this and sees "no person shall issue a statement that indicates discrimination," I think everyone recognizes that this is pretty vague. This vagueness is precisely what we have tried to point out, since "indicates" is such an indirect word. It's not a precise word, although I recognize that it was in the original bill. This is where improvement is needed. If nothing else, it leads to vagueness as we change this bill. Would the minister respond to that?
Hon. A. Hagen: In spite of the member's seeming difficulty, and in spite of the fact that I don't pretend to
[ Page 7652 ]
have the power of great words, I do understand that courts and tribunals are very capable of giving plain meaning to words. The words in this amendment are intended to help the courts. They do have plain meaning, and the courts are capable of giving them plain meaning.
V. Anderson: One of the realities is that this does not initially go to the courts. The very intent of this Human Rights Amendment Act -- using the minister's word -- is to undertake not to go to the courts but to go to the human rights council, and that people will be judged, if I may use that word, by the human rights council against the wording of this act. They will be fined or charged a levy or made to do some act or undo some act in which they have been engaged: to make apology, to make a payment, to do something. Only on appeal to an appeal to an appeal will it finally end up in the courts. It goes first of all to the human rights council, where we are intending to give guidance and direction at this point. Therefore we need to be even more clear than we might normally need to be in that case.
The minister talked about a threshold. There is a threshold for drinking and driving, but that threshold is clearly defined. Once you go across the threshold, you are in difficulty. I think we are looking at some kind of preciseness here, and I'd like to again ask the minister what makes the three words issue, statement and publication.... Why didn't the original words work? As said by the minister and people on her side of the House, the intent of this bill was to say that the act as it exists does not undertake the intent of the originators of the bill, or does not undertake the intent of the present government. Those are two different things. The originators of the bill probably had one intent; this government has defined that intent in quite a different way. Therefore because they have redefined or adjusted the threshold or the boundary, they now bring in new words to deal with their threshold and boundary line. I ask the minister why the previous words didn't work. Why is it thought that these words work when the other ones didn't?
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I note that we've had some discussion about whether "indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate," which is in the old act, is different from "indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate." We really have had discussion about words in a minute way that I'm having some difficulty responding to, because I personally think that "indicating" and "indicates" are the same word. I've spoken about the word "issue," which is added to cover printed material that is not necessarily of the normal published variety. I'm not quite sure what other words the member wants me to deal with.
Let me just come back to his earlier comment about the human rights council, which indeed is a tribunal that is capable of interpreting legislation and has the jurisdiction to do so. In fact, all human rights councils across the land have worked with very similar legislation to this. Let me note again that British Columbia is very late in coming into legislation that deals with a remedy for our citizens who are exposed to hatred and contempt. Other jurisdictions have had similar language to ours, and that language has been used by their human rights tribunals. As I noted earlier, those tribunals work within the framework of jurisprudence and the law and fully understand that framework. Again, let me say that our council has demonstrated this in the areas of discriminatory practices that it currently has under its jurisdiction. As we pass this amendment that will provide protection for our citizens for the first time and provide a remedy for them if they are exposed to discrimination, hatred and contempt, our human rights council will be working in the same context as other jurisdictions in Canada that have had such legislation available to them and their citizens for some time.
V. Anderson: I still would like the minister, if she would, to explain what she means when she says that people will have legislation for the first time that will protect them. We have all agreed that protecting people against hate literature is a proper thing to do; we're not questioning that. But I'm curious: when she says that with the passage of this legislation this protection will be available for the first time, can she explain to me why the protection was not available under the existing Human Rights Act? What in the present Human Rights Act has made it not available to deal with hate literature? I gather from the minister's answer that as it stands at the moment, in every way, shape or form it is totally out to lunch on dealing with hate literate. What is the difference?
Hon. A. Hagen: The legislation that we have had on the books has provided for protection against discrimination only in the area of advertisements for things like employment and housing. There is no mention in our human rights legislation about the matter of hatred and contempt which is now covered by this amendment.
V. Anderson: The minister has indicated that the main word that indicates the difference between the previous act and this one is the word "hatred" that we will be discussing later. If that is the crux of the issue that makes this act different from the previous act, I still ask, even if that phrase regarding hate was inserted into the act, why does she need the words -- "issue, statement and publication" -- once that word is there? If that's what the change is, why does she need the other words? It seems to me that there is more than that change being asked for in this legislation. One seems to be related to the other, and I'm trying to find out the reasoning for that relationship.
[8:45]
A publication today, that I don't necessarily agree with, highlighted the point -- and there are many who will agree with it -- that this amendment referring to publications would make it very easy to take the Bible to court. There are many in the Jewish community around the world who have said that the New Testament brings out contempt and hatred and has caused violence around the world because of that. I'm
[ Page 7653 ]
not saying that they shouldn't. I'm a minister in the Christian community and so I understand and I accept their statement for its validity. Then if you read some of the phrases about certain nations and groups within the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, there's certainly a great deal of hatred and contempt expressed there between different groups and nations, the descendants of which still live in the areas in and around the land of Palestine. That's probably one of the safest books to bring into the discussion, much less other books which are in public and school libraries. So with these other words we bring into case a publication like the Bible and expand the meaning of this really to no end. So I raise that distinction and ask her again, if the attempt really is to bring the word "hate" into the whole document, why do you need the extra words along with that? It seems that there is more than the main purpose at stake here.
Hon. A. Hagen: I'm sure the hon. member is not suggesting that in this debate today we range into the broad history of the human race with its many religious and other conflicts that have occurred. That takes us into a realm that's not a part of our debate this evening. The member is attempting to deal with definition. I found some very helpful perspectives on definition in the Taylor case. I think it's worthwhile to read into our discussion what one of our senior, learned judges has had to say about this. He said that the words "hatred" and "contempt" are "sufficiently precise and narrow to limit its impact to...expressive activities which are repugnant to Parliament's objective." Because this case was tried under the Canadian human rights legislation, it refers to our federal House.
"The phrase 'hatred or contempt' in the context of..." -- the Canadian Human Rights Act -- "refers only to unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification and as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose of..." -- in this case, again, the Canadian Human Rights Act -- "and pay heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in that phrase, there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section."
We're dealing with words that are very plain words, words that most of us understand. They're words that are defined and described for us very well by Chief Justice Dickson in the passage I have just read. I would remind the members who are participating in the debate that we have, I believe, all agreed that it is important for us to have a remedy for citizens who are victims -- a remedy that is accessible to them within the framework of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has guarantees and which understands the limits that exist within a free and democratic society.
That's the framework of this amendment, which is now being passed through committee stage so that it will become in fact a remedy, a means, for citizens who know the impact of such hateful and contemptuous activities and manifestations of discrimination -- a remedy for people who know and experience that and who do not have full equality in our society as a result of the way in which they may experience those vile and detestable activities.
So that's what we're debating tonight. I think it's very important for us, although we're not in second reading dealing with the principle of the bill, to keep the purpose from being lost as we look at the plain language in which the bill is cast.
V. Anderson: Yes, I know we're going to have difficulty this evening, because I recognize that we're coming at this from two different premises -- interestingly enough, with the same intent.
My response to the minister's last comment is that when I get a boil on my foot, I don't just bring out every bottle in the medicine chest, pour them on the boil and hope one of them may work. That's not the kind of remedy we're looking for. The expansion of words beyond end, to make sure that we may have one word that fits a particular case, is not the kind of remedy we're looking for. I would ask the minister to help us in understanding that we do need some clarity and definitions.
The other word that I would like to bring forward is in (a). Here you have also added a very significant phrase. The word that has been added in the definitions was not to whom this would apply before, and that is "a group." We've looked up "class" in the dictionary, and "class" under the plain language definition of the minister includes "a group." It's one of the things that a class includes. So the plain language definition is not suitable here, because the minister wants to refer to a group particularly. What is the meaning of group in this context? It has many different meanings, according to the context. And why has that word "group" been added to give a different definition than "person," "class of persons" or "a group of persons"? What's the difference between a group of persons and a class of persons?
Hon. A. Hagen: Last year when we brought in amendments to the Human Rights Act, we did expand the access to human rights remedy to a group or class. I don't think that there was any discussion at the time that the amendment was brought in about that expansion. I think most of us, recognizing that these are pretty plain, ordinary, garden-variety words, know that a group or a class of people is a group or class that is identifiable in some way. There are a variety of ways in which people may be identified as a group or a class. We all use those terms in everyday language and, I think, understand them quite well.
J. Tyabji: I apologize to the minister. I've just come into the debate, so if we've canvassed something already, either you or the member for Vancouver-Langara could perhaps let me know. We were talking about the definition of "group" that the minister was saying in the very wide sense of the term.
There are a few things that I think would be useful to clarify that came out in second reading debate here. One is the reference that was made to the public interest. I don't know if that's being canvassed adequately right now, but we had the member for Vancouver-Hastings saying quite clearly that the bill
[ Page 7654 ]
was determined to protect the public interest. That's one thing.
The other thing is with regard to "group." One of the things that occurs to me is: are there any limitations in this? Would a group, for example, be something as loosely defined as a social club? In a strange kind of way, would the Vancouver Club end up being something that could qualify underneath this? Is it that kind of legislation? I think that's what the member for Vancouver-Langara was trying to say -- that since the word "class" already includes "group," if you have the duplication here, is that because you're trying to talk about a group that might be a loosely associated group? So those are two things, and I think that in terms of the public interest we can canvass that a bit more extensively. Can we get a general idea from the minister of who defines the public interest?
Hon. A. Hagen: I would refer the member to the (b) section of this clause. A group or class could refer to any of the designations: race, colour, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation or age. So there are a variety of ways in which groups could be defined. But we're again dealing with discrimination and the groups or classes that may be discriminated against as they are defined in the act.
J. Tyabji: I understand that we're dealing with discrimination, but the definition of discrimination is often dependent on the person who's perceiving the discrimination. That's something that obviously the opposition has already had a number of philosophical differences on with the government. The word "contempt" that's used under 2(1)(b) is something that to me seems to be a very wide-open word to be chosen there. It's quite clear that the definition of "discrimination" is open to the perception of the person who is perceiving the discrimination and that "contempt" is something that is very arbitrary. "Hatred" is a much stronger word, but "contempt" is something that can be fairly arbitrary. I don't know how this can be defined in law. Does the minister have anything to perhaps narrow down the definition?
Hon. A. Hagen: I dealt with that matter before the hon. member came into the chamber.
A. Warnke: There was a question posed by the member for Vancouver-Langara to the minister for which there really wasn't a clear answer given. The original bill did not include the three words "issue," "statement" or "publication." The member for Vancouver-Langara asked what I thought was a very clear question. Since the original bill did not include those three words, why is it now necessary to introduce them into the new act?
Hon. A. Hagen: I believe I covered that in the earlier discussion, hon. member. The intent of this is to ensure that certain matters such as broadsheets, which are often vehicles for expressions of hatred and contempt, are covered. We did discuss that quite extensively at the beginning of our debate.
A. Warnke: Perhaps not as extensively as the minister thinks. Indeed in our own province, where we formulated the original act, there actually was considerable discussion about the term "publication." A publication includes newspapers, books and, indeed, as the member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out, even the Bible itself, considering it is a book. The very subject of publications has been addressed in other jurisdictions and in fact in our own province. Those who formulated the original act, in their wisdom did not include "publication" for the simple reason that the implications are quite profound. Therefore it was deliberately left out. If one reads the original act, it does not include "publication." I would again suggest that the words "issue" and "statement" present somewhat similar problems. The original act does include a number of areas, if you like, that can actually apply to some of the groups that practise or express hatred, and so forth.
[9:00]
The minister must have something in mind that has occurred -- there's that word "something" again -- some event, occurrence or experience, to think that it was absolutely essential to introduce the words "issue," "statement" and, in particular, "publication," given that "publication" has been discussed in the past in other jurisdictions. What event took place that makes it incumbent that the term "publication" be introduced? I'm not picking on it. Perhaps there's a very valid reason here. What triggered the necessity to include "publication" here?
Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, these words are used in other jurisdictions. I think all of us would recognize that discrimination, hatred or contempt are in the printed word and may in fact be in statements or publications. We are dealing with a ten-year-old statute that we have all recognized does not provide protection for those who are exposed to discriminatory activities or to hatred and contempt. I go back to my original comment that the intent of the amendment was to ensure that these expressions were encompassed in a way that would provide the kind of remedy and protection that all of us agree are important to have for those groups, or for the individuals who may be part of those groups where discrimination, hatred and contempt tend to be focused.
I really find it very difficult to understand the approach that the member is taking. Jurisprudence has clearly indicated that these are areas where we need to have clear definition. A statement, a broadsheet, something that's distributed -- I've often used the example of a schoolyard -- and that says outrageous things leading and inciting people to violence and hatred are things that can be dealt with by this amendment. We're looking at ensuring that we're not dealing just with a symbol or a sign or an emblem but with something that is in print. That's the example I find most offensive, because I see them. They are so full of the vilification and hatred that we know affects the equality and dignity of people who may in some way be identified with a race, an ancestry, a national group or a religion that all of us would want to have a clear, plain
[ Page 7655 ]
language approach that will allow them to seek remedy through our Human Rights Act.
Other jurisdictions have such legislation, some of it stronger, some of it not as strong as ours. But they have had such legislation for some time, and I really want to see that kind of protection and remedy available for our citizens as well. I believe that by looking at the legislation and the way in which it provides those kinds of remedies, we can then see that the Human Rights Act will provide an approach that wasn't available for British Columbians until our government brought this amendment forward.
D. Symons: I did not enter into the debate on this particular bill before, so I hope I will not repeat what anyone else has said. To begin with, I must say that I'm somewhat disturbed by some of the remarks made by members on the government side, who implied that when we were getting up and speaking of our concerns with the changes in this particular bill, somehow we were promoting hatred or assisting in the continuation of various types of discrimination. If you examine carefully the words of all members in this House on whatever side, this is simply not the case. No one here is in any way trying to protect those who practise discriminatory hatred or any other unacceptable behaviour.
We do have some concerns with particular changes that have been made or are being brought forth in this particular bill. One of them was brought up earlier by the member for Vancouver-Langara, who mentioned the Bible as an example of the sort of unintended -- and this is my concern -- outcome of a bill of this sort, and the words that have been added and the words that have been excluded. To update it, we can see that in Iran, where a fundamentalist religious group has taken control of the country....
The Chair: Order. Would the hon. member address his remarks to the section being debated, which is section 2.
D. Symons: I believe I will be in section 2, hon. Chair.
The Chair: The remarks that the Chair has heard so far indicate second reading debate.
D. Symons: I do believe I'm reading in section 2, "because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status..." -- and I was referring to "religion."
The Chair: Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Symons: Thank you, hon. Chair.
We see that that particular phrase can put a death sentence on somebody who wrote a book that was not too complimentary to the religion of that country. In this country, a woman has written a book called The Handmaid's Tale. Those in very fundamentalist Christian religions could say something in there promotes a dislike for that particular religion that it is being frowned upon and discriminated against because that tale gives the impression that people with that degree of fervor can easily be led astray. Within our society and all too many places throughout the world, we see that the veneer of civilization is very thin. It doesn't take much for a Yugoslavia to happen somewhere else in the world when hatred boils to the surface.
To get back to the particular bill, my concern is more with what is missing from section 2 of the previous bill. Because what we had there was protection of the right to free speech. The fact that it is now missing is very important. This is what I want to hone in on, because I think it's important. If you want to achieve your goal -- to prevent discrimination, or to lessen discrimination and hatred -- we have to make sure we can see and recognize those who are practising such acts.
I would prefer to know and see who is perpetrating that sort of behaviour, rather than not have it apply to "private communication or to communication intended to be private" -- as it does in section 2. What we're doing is submerging this, so that the behaviour we're trying to get rid of will indeed go underground. I think that is a very dangerous situation. An enemy you can see is better than an enemy you cannot see.
If I might, I will quote from Charles James Fox. It's a few years old. He was a Member of Parliament in Great Britain who was involved in the movement to abolish slavery. He said: "Opinions...
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The hon. member makes interesting points with respect to this overall subject matter; however, under standing orders we must deal strictly with the sections as they are germane to the bill rather than a general debate, which we had in second reading. I would ask the hon. member to address the specifics of the section and try and contain his remarks with respect to the standing orders in committee.
D. Symons: I would ask direction from the Chair, then. If I'm not speaking to section 2(2) at the moment, I would heed his caution. But I believe I'm speaking on private communication, or the need or the lack of it....
The Chair: Hon. member, the problem is that it's not up to the Chair to interpret your intentions but to strictly confine the debate to the specifics of the section. I would just ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the section and not get into a broad-ranging debate on other principles and matters. Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Symons: I heed your caution, hon. Chair. I really did think, and still do think, that I am relating to section 2. I will continue until you rule me out of order, possibly. Because section 2(2) does deal with private communications. I think that allowing private communications but not allowing public communications is going to get us into a box that was really not intended by the government. I was going to quote Mr. Fox: "Opinions become dangerous to a state only when persecution makes it necessary for the people to communicate their ideas under the bond of secrecy." I
[ Page 7656 ]
believe that is basically what section 2(2) does. It's going to allow people who have opinions that none of us agree with -- and who are promoting concepts that none of us agree with -- to continue this underground. As I said earlier, I would prefer these people were identifiable so that we would be able to counter their arguments, rather than have them continue it under cover of secrecy.
I would note one other quote that I think is also germane. Hubert Humphrey, a politician in the United States a couple of decades ago, said: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." I think that may also be important, because when we hear racial discrimination, we can end up evaluating the person who is making the statement and the statement itself. In a free and open society, that is extremely important. We can defeat racism and hatred if we can expose it for what it is. I think the unintended part of your amendments to this bill will allow that to continue underground and therefore defeat the very purpose for which you are making these changes.
I have one last quote that is germane, and then the Chair won't have to rule me out of order. Eleanor Holmes Norton is an extremely well-known woman of colour in the United States who has been extremely active in the American Civil Liberties Union. The quote I would like to read from her is: "The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the right of people you don't agree with."
I will end on that, and ask the hon. member to consider changing section 2(2) back to what it was so that we can identify and see the people who are perpetrating this behaviour that all society disagrees with.
Hon. A. Hagen: It is quite difficult for me to understand where this Liberal group is coming from. We have entered into a bit of a literary debate about the The Handmaid's Tale. From his comments I am not sure that the member has read it, but perhaps I don't do him justice in that regard.
[9:15]
We are talking about British Columbia, Canada; we are not talking about Yugoslavia or Iran. I really do question whether the member is suggesting that a private conversation that he and I or he and another member might have should be subject to the attention of this amendment and could come before the council.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The hon. member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. If I may just respond to the last comment, I think the minister totally missed the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying that private communications should be subject to prosecution but rather that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we are allowing it privately but not publicly.
I believe that we should bring back section 2(2) as it was: leave this section 2(2) out and bring the other one back in.
The Chair: The hon. member for Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could come back to the....
The Chair: Powell River-Sunshine Coast, pardon me.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you put that in, because the people of Powell River would have felt terribly left out if you hadn't.
I wonder if we can come back to the minister. The government has used Canada v. Taylor as their jurisprudence on this question. I have the language of the judge's ruling in front of me. The government has been very selective in its use of this particular case in order to try to justify some of the language in here. The minister said that she is not clear where the Liberals are coming from. I'll tell you where the Liberals are coming from: we are concerned that in the valid and valuable attempt to try and curb hatred and promotion of hatred, some of the wording in here may extinguish the right of free expression and the ability for people to continue to freely express themselves in society.
As a result of that, I would point out that in this particular ruling -- and I read from the judge's ruling -- on the question of hatred and contempt, which are the important words that have been used with respect to this bill, the suggestion is that: "The use of the words hatred and contempt is vague, subjective and susceptible to a wide range of meanings and extends the scope of section 13.1," -- which in this particular case is the promotion of hatred by telephone messages -- "to cover expressions presently of little threat of fostering hatred or discrimination." That's what the same judge who this ministry is using to try and promote this said in the ruling. As I say, it's the use of the words "hatred" and "contempt," which are vague and subjective and susceptible to a wide range of meanings.
We look at the language of the existing bill and at the changes, and we notice that the original bill says: "No person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public, a notice, sign...." If we're going to continue to include "cause to be published," and we are going to add -- as the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for Richmond-Steveston have both very correctly pointed out -- the word "publication," does the minister believe that the author, as well as anyone who may be the publisher or printer of such material, would be subjected to any kind of action before the human rights tribunal?
Hon. A. Hagen: Again, hon. Chair, the person who is deemed to be responsible is the person who should be the subject of any complaint that comes forward. A person could publish, cause to be published or have published, issued or displayed a statement or a
[ Page 7657 ]
symbol, and could be the subject, as I would understand it, of a complaint -- the person who is responsible for the action that comes under this particular amendment. If I could just note the earlier comments, the statements that I was reading from the court case we have talked about are the conclusions of that case.
G. Wilson: It's always important when you're reading the conclusions to also read the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, because sometimes that's a more enlightening discussion. Judges often provide rulings, especially when there are minority opinions in a Supreme Court ruling. I don't want to get into that in too much detail. If I could use a very specific case in point, in the last couple of weeks it has come to light in a community just outside of Victoria that some members of the Canadian Armed Forces allegedly -- and I underscore the word "allegedly" -- have been perpetrating hatred through the promotion of white supremacist literature. That material had been published by a local printer, who upon reading and recognizing what was going on, decided that they would no longer continue to print it. This happened just outside of Victoria. If this act goes through, would a printer who receives material to be printed in a normal manner and publishes it by contract, thinking that it is coming from reasonably reputable individuals, be deemed to have caused that material to be published, and would that printer be subject to action under this bill?
Hon. A. Hagen: I believe that would be up to the council to determine. I'm not able to be more specific in this regard for the member.
G. Wilson: Unfortunately, it is not the human rights council that is drafting this legislation. This legislation has been drafted by this minister and this government. With all due respect, it is up to this minister and this government, not the human rights council, to adequately explain the intent and purpose of the bill that is before this House.
As a result, my question is: does it mean that any printer who may be subject to printing material that could be interpreted by any group that receives or is exposed to it as indicative of discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any particular person or group.... It says later on that the material might even be with respect to marital status. I'm not sure what the minister has in mind; we'll get to that a little later. Does it mean that any printer in British Columbia is now going to have to act as an editor, making some kind of rational decision as to whether they will print or, as this says, cause to publish material if they deem that there may be some grey area in terms of hate literature or that they may be subject to potential action under the Human Rights Act?
Hon. A. Hagen: It seems to me that many people make that judgment all the time. Editors make that judgment all the time. There are laws that say that you cannot incite to sedition or to violence. So I go back to the language of the bill: a person who "shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed..." could be covered by the amendment. As the hon. Premier noted in an earlier discussion, those reasonable limits on our actions are part of a free and democratic society and part of the way in which we deal with everyday decisions.
G. Wilson: I think the minister is correct when she says that these decisions are taken every day by editors and by people involved in the publishing of material -- in particular, newspaper editors, who may be carrying editorial comment by writers who are deemed to be offensive. They have to make a decision as to whether the writings of the people they're publishing are actionable.
I come back to the Canada v. Taylor case. Again I would quote from the reasoning given by the judge. The wording is: "By using the same wording as is found in the common law in defamation cases, parliament has provided an intelligible standard for the tribunal to apply." We've gone well beyond the same wording found in defamation cases in this particular bill. If indeed there is libelous or slanderous material, if there is material that promotes hatred, we have a Civil Rights Protection Act -- notwithstanding that I noticed under another bill that's been tabled we've just essentially repealed the Attorney General ministry, which is probably the reason we can't use this anymore. But that's another story. Having said that, why is it that with the wording that is given here, the minister feels it is necessary to go beyond the normal common law defamation standard with respect to the publication of materials that would be under section 2(1)(a) or 2(1)(b)?
Hon. A. Hagen: I'd like to remind the member that we're dealing with people who may be exposed to hatred or contempt because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, etc. I'm no lawyer, but I understand that defamation deals with an individual. Clearly, too, we are dealing with definitions of hatred and contempt that do exist within our jurisprudence. I think they are understood by people in society, by editors, by publishers.
There is a framework in which we all operate with respect to those reasonable limits. What we're talking about is people who go beyond those reasonable limits. What we're talking about are people in our society who are offended by, affected by or hurt by such action. This amendment provides them with a remedy through our Human Rights Act and through our human rights council.
G. Wilson: Of course, that begs the debate on who determines what's a reasonable limit. Obviously the human rights council is going to be determining it in British Columbia, and I suspect it is going to be determining many, many cases. Notwithstanding what the minister says.... I recognize that the minister is not a lawyer, but assume that she has had the benefit of the best legal minds in government to put this thing together, and therefore they must have some interpretation on what is being put in place here. You are going to put in place "cause to be published" and
[ Page 7658 ]
then add in the same paragraph "a publication," so presumably you're not only going after the author, but after the individual who would have published the words of that author or printed them. That's what I'm trying to get at here.
With respect to the question of going after people who may be discriminated against or where there may be hate promotion on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status and so on, I understand it will take -- and if I'm wrong, the minister can correct me -- an individual to launch action with the human rights council. There is not going to be a class action under this. So to suggest that the prohibitions with respect to defamation, which is against an individual, cannot also be used in this case, just simply doesn't stand up.
So let me come back to the case of the alleged hate literature promotion by the members of the Armed Forces. A local printer was printing that material, discovered it to be so and voluntarily withdrew its publication. If that person had not done so, and this act were in place, would that printer be subject to action underneath the Human Rights Act? We need to get that established.
Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps the member might be drawn to the intention to discriminate. Again, we are debating a hypothetical case. I commend the printer. I think the member commends the printer, too, for exercising judgment and saying that the material before him was not material with which he wanted to be associated. I am hearing that that's in fact the decision that he took.
[9:30]
But in terms of the language of the amendment, let me just note: was there an intention to discriminate? If this particular instance came before the human rights council as a complaint, then as they reviewed the complaint in the light of this legislation, that would be one of the questions that they would need to answer in the affirmative.
G. Wilson: It was a woman who was involved in the publishing, and I think it was after the fact, actually, that the material was brought to her attention and she decided to stop printing it. So the point is that it had already been printed. You may find people who for want of business practice or the fact that they don't discriminate against who they do and do not print for.... The reason I'm getting to this is because we've been trying to get a definition on the question of what a publication is. Is a publication a pamphlet or a leaflet or a political brochure that may be promoting the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. Is that a publication? If they are publications, then are the people who print those publications going to be as liable under this bill as the people who author them?
Hon. A. Hagen: I think it's the content that's the issue. We have discussed the hypothetical case that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has just been outlining to us.
G. Wilson: Maybe I've not been clear. I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I think this is a very important point, because it goes to the heart of some of the objections we've been raising on the Liberal side. It isn't a question of content. We're assuming that there wouldn't be an action taken if the content wasn't offensive. Therefore it's not a question of content. We've already established that the content is hateful and promotes hatred, and we're all saying: "Yes, if that's the case, then action should be taken." The question is: what constitutes a publication in the mind of the minister?
I gave some examples. Does the printer who is responsible for the printing and possibly even the distribution of that material -- because if you've got a mailing house that is connected with, for example, the distribution of a political brochure...? Let me bring forward another case in point: right now a fishers' coalition is putting out a lot of material in which they are seriously questioning the aboriginal fisheries strategy in the province. They are seriously questioning whether or not it is a viable and sensible strategy to proceed with, and they are putting forward what they believe to be truthful representations of the status quo with respect to aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. There are those who have seen their pamphlets and brochures who would argue -- and who have argued in my office, on the street with me, and elsewhere -- that this is material that promotes hatred against aboriginal people.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: If not hatred, as the member for Richmond-Stevenson says, certainly they're arguing that it promotes contempt, which is in this bill. Does this mean that if a particular aboriginal group looks at that material and believes that to be the case, not only will the authors of that document be liable under this bill but also the people that print it? And in this case, because I believe they were part and parcel of a major distribution, will the people that distribute that material also be cited under this act? In this case I believe they were part of a major distribution. That's a very important point. I'm not being argumentative; this is a point that we have to understand before we proceed.
Hon. A. Hagen: I don't find the example that the member has used to be one that is very helpful to debate. We have all spoken about vigorous discussion around policy issues. I know that it is not my responsibility to question, but I gather the member is saying that people may in fact be given the latitude or the licence to print anything they like and not take any responsibility for it. I come back to his earlier comment about the woman who took responsibility for what she was printing. Without knowing what it was, I gather that she recognized it was hate literature in some form. I don't know what form it was, but she recognized it and personally took responsibility not to be associated with it. I'm not sure if the member is suggesting that you automatically publish something that comes into your publishing house or your print shop and if you see
[ Page 7659 ]
it to be vilification of that hateful and contemptuous nature that we're talking about, you take no responsibility for it.
As I say, I believe that editors, printers and publishers make those decisions every day. I'm not sure that it's helpful to our debate to try to examine every possible venue. We're talking about the spirited and liberal discussion of significant and difficult policy issues within a freedom of expression and communication that is a right and a responsibility. We're also talking in this legislation about remedies for people who do not have any means within current B.C. law to bring a complaint forward when they are subject to things that limit their equality and dignity and leave them subject not only to personal damage but also to the possibility that others will be influenced to think of them in hateful and contemptuous ways.
Over and over again I come back to the example of the ways in which our young people are influenced by some of the literature that comes to them when they may be young and impressionable. We need to be able to deal with that at the same time as we deal with ways in which they learn, through their own initiatives, through their teachers and through their community standards and values, to recognize and respect the dignity and equality of every person who lives and walks in British Columbia. I very much like that word "walk," because we are very often talking about people being able to walk down our streets and travel in our communities without being subject to hateful activities and the promotion of those hateful activities, which we've all seen.
I believe that we need to look at the intent of this legislation, which is to provide that remedy. It's my problem that I do not hear the support from the Liberal side of the House for this initiative. I do not hear them supporting the communities that are protected by this legislation. I think that has to be a concern to all of us.
G. Wilson: It sounds like the minister is slipping back into second reading debate on the intent and principle of the bill. All of us want to try to eradicate hate literature, all of us would like to eradicate hatred and all of us are going to take umbrage with those who deliberately go out and try to promote hatred and divide our society. We've gone through that lengthy debate in second reading, and we're now dealing with the specific language of the bill. It's important that we understand that language. This is not something we're going to allow to slide by easily here.
We have a situation here where "publication" has now been added in. As the member for Richmond-Steveston correctly pointed out, by adding "publication," we have to know whether or not that also means a wide-ranging set of definitions -- a book on the shelf in a school that somebody may deem to be hateful or to promote hatred. Goodness knows, are we going to go out and start to review all the holdings of all the schools? I suspect that we're likely to get there. Whether we can go as far as a brochure that may be put forward by a political party, for example, or an agency in Canada....
One that I don't subscribe to is APEC, the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. Now there's an organization that puts out publications on a regular basis, and they argue for a unilingual Canada. They do so in a very vocal, very strong manner that is anti-francophone. There is a very large francophone community in the province of British Columbia. When they distribute their publications, I'd like the minister to tell me if she intends their publications to no longer be acceptable in the province. Will that be actionable under the Human Rights Act, and will the people who publish that material -- the printers, because they caused it to be published -- then be responsible for their actions under the Human Rights Amendment Act?
That's a specific question, because there are many francophone people in British Columbia who find APEC to be an intolerable, unfortunate and -- some would say -- hateful organization that is anti-francophone. The minister says that these examples aren't helpful. These are the very examples that will raise their heads in the province of British Columbia, and we have to know what the government's intention in this bill is.
So if the minister can answer that, I'm going to come back to the question on the aboriginal fishery strategy and the question with respect to the fisheries coalition. They have material being printed and distributed, and the question that has already been raised by some people prior to this bill is that that material is racist. It's very easy to label a person racist, because there are unfortunately many people in our society who are racist and bigots and who promote hatred. But in trying to get rid of that element of society, we have to be extremely careful in the wording we put into a bill that we do not unduly constrain the freedom and rights of the individual. That's where my questions come to with respect to this language. If the minister could respond to that, it would be most helpful.
Hon. A. Hagen: We have many laws in our land. We have laws of slander and laws of libel. As those laws are administered by our councils, tribunals or courts, they are not subjective; they are based on the merits of the arguments. We clearly have in our Charter two powerful statements about freedom of expression and communication in our media, subject to reasonable limits within a free and democratic society.
The member sounds at times as if he is arguing a particular case, and that's not something we can do in debate of this bill. I would note that we are talking about discrimination or intention to discriminate. We are talking about a balance based on merit. We are certainly talking about any means by which those expressions may be put forward, so we are clearly talking about the printed word as well as a sign or symbol.
I would note again that when we look at a fundamental of our Human Rights Act, it is not lawful to place an advertisement in print that discriminates against persons, groups or classes of persons who are protected against discrimination in our Human Rights Act. If we simply look at some of the protections that are currently in the Human Rights Act, we have some
[ Page 7660 ]
idea of the way we deal with the council having that balance around intention, publication and discriminatory practices.
[9:45]
I really believe, hon. Chair, that the member is straying into areas that are not possible for us to deal with on their specific merits, although I understand that he is bringing examples to talk about the balance that needs to be there. We agree that that balance needs to be there, but what this amendment does is provide protection that is currently not there. It helps to provide a balance that is currently not there for people in our society who do not have equality or dignity, as a result of people who would promote hatred through hate literature and contemptuous action. That's what this is all about.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I would ask the committee.... Hon. members, order, please. We've had considerable disturbance in committee for quite some time. Regrettably, I must ask the members to please refrain somewhat from the diversions taking place, because it's very difficult to hear the debate on Bill 33. I would appreciate your cooperation, hon. members. Thank you.
G. Wilson: With respect to the little group gathered down there, I can settle the argument. It's the Premier's deal, and I think it's....
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Excuse me.
If I can come back to this bill, I'm really not trying to prolong debate here and be an obstructionist. The problem is that we have not yet learned from the minister the definition of the word "publication" in this particular amendment. We need to know that. It isn't up to the Council of Human Rights to determine what the minister means in a bill that the minister is tabling before the House. It is this government that must set in place the definitions that are here.
I raise because, as sure as we all are in this House debating this now, matters will be arising around the two issues I've raised today, which the minister says are hypothetical and not helpful. They are going to be tested under this because, if an individual, group of individuals or class of individuals determines that the material being distributed indicates discrimination or an intent to discriminate against a person, group or class of persons, this bill will apply. Let me put to the minister a question in reverse form: does the minister believe that if something is put forward by a representational group on behalf of first nations in B.C. that argues, with respect to the distribution of material or materials that it is exclusive to first nations -- i.e., not inclusive of non-aboriginal peoples -- it would be deemed a discriminatory kind of action on the basis of race, colour or ancestry?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member needs to recognize that the human rights council -- a tribunal of competent jurisdiction -- is charged with determining that. Bringing a case to a tribunal is a first stage. The amendment provides, within the framework of our common law, Charter and jurisprudence, the guidance that allows that tribunal of competent jurisdiction to determine whether there is in fact a matter that it should consider in the context of this amendment.
G. Wilson: Again, I have to reiterate and put on the record that the human rights council is not drafting this legislation. At least, I didn't think it was; I thought it was the government of British Columbia. And this minister has to be responsible for the wording in this bill.
Section 2(1) says: "(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or" -- it doesn't say "and"; it says "or" -- "(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt." Because of the conjunctive "or" we're dealing with two things. The section says that (a) can exist by itself or (b) can exist by itself, or the two can exist together.
Let me ask the minister this: would the province of B.C. be subject to an action under the Human Rights Amendment Act if it introduced legislation that discriminates or intends to discriminate against a group or a class of persons on the basis of their race, colour or ancestry with respect to an order of government?
Hon. A. Hagen: The government is bound by human rights legislation, as it is bound by the Charter of our constitution.
V. Anderson: I think the minister missed the point on the last one, but it will come up again.
One thing I have to say, though, is that I'm disappointed in the minister, for whom I generally have high respect, even though I might not agree with her all the time. After all the times during second reading that we on this side of the House made an extreme effort to say that we were very much against hate literature, the minister stood up and said that she does not hear the Liberal side speaking against hate literature. I realize that she may not have been listening or may not have been present. But if she goes back to Hansard or even listens to what we've said this evening, she will very clearly understand that we are equally concerned with the problem of hate literature and the extreme difficulty it causes in the lives of many people.
Interjections.
V. Anderson: Having said that, hon. Chair, I will go back to the minister's earlier statement....
The Chair: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.
V. Anderson: When I asked the question of why the term "group" was put in, she indicated that it had been in the Human Rights Amendment Act of 1992. I went and got the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992, and there is no reference to "group" in there that I have
[ Page 7661 ]
been able to discover. If the minister can point it out to me, I would be pleased to correct myself. That's why I raised the question in the first place.
It does appear in section 11 under "Complaints," but it does not appear in the other sections. It does not appear in the section under "Discrimination in public facilities." It does not appear under "Discrimination in tenancy premises," nor under "Discrimination by unions and associations." It does appear in the section on "Complaints," but there it refers to any person who speaks on behalf of another "person or group or class of persons." That uses "group" in a different context than what we're dealing with here. I want to point that out to the minister, because that was my reason for asking why "group" was included as a new description. It was not in those other sections of Bill 63 in 1992. Why is it there and what does it mean?
Hon. A. Hagen: I want to help the member. Part 1 of the act deals with "Discriminatory Practices Prohibited." We are adding a discriminatory practice that is prohibited. Then there is the section on the council and who may file complaints. Last year we added the capacity for "a group or class of people" to file complaints. It used to be that only an individual could file complaints. It's in section 11, in part 2, "Council of Human Rights" legislation, so it applies to all complaints under discriminatory practices. This would be one of the sections under which "a person or a group or class of persons" could file a complaint, and that was an addition to the legislation in the amendments last year.
V. Anderson: I acknowledged that that was in section 11 when I read it. I pointed out that the group or class referred to is the group or class that is going to file a complaint, not the group or class that a complaint is filed against. So it's in a different context and has a different meaning. That is the point. It's not in the other sections that refer to people. It's "a person or class of persons" against whom you are filing a complaint in the sections. So there's a difference, and I pointed out that difference.
I ask the minister why, in the other part of that section.... In two places in the previous bill it stated: "No person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public...." It indicated the context in which what was published was to be presented. This bill indicates that it's not against a private publication circulated in a limited and private group. When you take "before the public" out, you change the meaning and the intent -- as the minister is wont to say -- of the act that is now before us. The words you've added in and the words you've taken out, in both cases, have significantly changed the meaning of the act. Why was the phrase "before the public" taken out? Also, what does "group" mean?
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me go back to the first comment about group or class. It is an individual, a group or a class that is perhaps offended by the promotion of hatred or is exposed to discrimination. Therefore an individual, a group or a class may file a complaint. That's the simple reason that is there. It's not just an individual who may file a complaint, but in fact it is also a group or class. I think that goes back to my earlier comments.
[10:00]
With respect to what we are talking about here, if you publish, issue or display something, it is demonstrably going to be before the public, unless it comes under subsection (2). If I display something on the mantle in the living room of my house, it is a private communication, and that is not covered by this amendment. We clearly noted that private communications do not come within the ambit of the amendment.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Hagen: Then it's not covered.
V. Anderson: I understand, or at least I appreciate -- I don't understand; I must acknowledge that -- what the minister has said.
I have another comment I'd like to bring to the minister's attention, which would normally have come up a little later. The minister made a point of saying, both in second reading and in this discussion today, that this act will have a bearing in the schoolyard and on young people. I understand what she's saying: hate literature should not be available in the schoolyard or to young people. I can appreciate that. However, one of the things added in this act is the word "age," which was not in the previous act. By adding the word "age" she has brought to bear the definition that age means 19 to 65, by the act brought to bear last year. So she has brought to bear, if I understand correctly, that the act does not apply to persons under 19 years of age. Age is specifically mentioned in this act and therefore is defined as 19 to 65 by the act itself. I'm not sure if that's -- using the minister's own word -- her "intention."
There's a concern there; I'm not sure what her intention is. When she purposely did not want the act to apply to young people, we come into the same bind as we do with the Young Offenders Act. In the Young Offenders Act some of the most serious offences of young people cannot be tried properly, as many people would think, because they're protected and excluded under the Young Offenders Act. Under this act, by including the definition of age, one has defined that this no longer applies in a full sense to persons 65 or over -- seniors -- on the one hand or to persons under 19 on the other hand. It applies only to those persons between 19 and 65.
So if those who are attempting to deal with hate literature are very careful to apply it only to seniors and youngsters, they may be protected. That's a concern I bring to the minister in that regard.
A. Warnke: I want to quickly pursue one thing with the minister. I'll start with a very short question. In the original act section 2(2) reads: "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 has been totally
[ Page 7662 ]
deleted and replaced by another section. Well, I won't read it. I am just wondering if the minister could explain why the original section 2(2) was deleted entirely.
Hon. A. Hagen: The amendment that we are debating tonight in committee stage is protected under the Charter, and I think we've made the point in all of our discussions that that's the overriding framework of protection for this and all legislation.
A. Warnke: It's a nice attempt to say that somewhere along the line "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject" exists somewhere else. When we are pursuing intent here, it could be very easily construed, through the courts and indeed through the human rights tribunal and so forth, that a deletion of this particular section, which existed in the old act, was intended by this government and this ministry to essentially rid itself of, subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act: "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." That's how it could be construed.
I do not see, therefore, why it could not simply continue to exist and add, if the ministry wanted to: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private." Why did that not simply end up being 2(3)? Why delete the original section? I tell you, hon. Chair, that deleting that particular section sends a very misleading signal. The minister perhaps does not intend to do that, but it sends a signal that by deleting this, we're really attacking "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject."
Indeed, I'm not the only one to have raised that. This is one particular area where a number of people throughout the media and press community, who are engaged in publishing or in expressing their opinions, have pointed out to the government over and over again that this is a wrong signal to send. Would the minister therefore answer the question: why not keep the original in there? Why rely on something in the Charter when it exists elsewhere? Leave it in there, and simply add the proposed 2(2) as 2(3).
Hon. A. Hagen: The member has raised a very important point. We noted in our second reading debate that the Civil Rights Protection Act, referred to in the clause the member has just quoted from the old act, limits freedom of expression beyond public communications. It moves into the private area of communication, and clearly we have dealt with that matter in this amendment. The courts too have spoken, and I will just read these comments, because they very clearly state the protections which are an important part of this amendment. This is again from the Taylor case, and Chief Justice Dickson's words are: "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." He notes that Canadian, Quebec and Yukon Territory human rights statutes contain no such protective element. And I would note, hon. member, that all the legislation that does contain those elements predates the Charter, when we didn't have those protections.
If I could just continue with my quotation from Chief Justice Dickson's judgment: "In any event, I do not think it in error to say that even in the absence of such an exemption, an interpretation of" -- the Canadian rights statute -- "consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech...." Again, the intent of this legislation is very clear: it is a remedy, and it provides protection for individuals and groups against discrimination, hate and contempt. It does this in a balanced way with the protections that are there in those first two clauses of the Charter, and in definition, balance and interpretation provides a framework for our council -- which will deal with the various issues that may come forward -- to make their judgments. I want to emphasize again that a complaint -- which is the language used in the Human Rights Act -- first of all has to go through threshold tests before it is accepted by the council. The laying of a complaint is not an automatic acceptance of that complaint by the council. They deal with that complaint within the legislation we're dealing with, within the broad Human Rights Act, the Charter, common law and jurisprudence. Although I have not been given to long answers tonight -- because we are not debating in second reading -- I would note again for the hon. members that we have many examples in Canadian human rights legislation of the very kind of clause we are debating here. They have stood the test of time; in other jurisdictions they have provided the kind of protection that we now want to see available for our citizens who may be the victims of the promotion of hateful activities or discrimination.
G. Wilson: Canada v. Taylor -- the reference made with respect to past litigation and court judgment -- is really not very helpful to this debate. I don't know how well the minister has familiarized herself with this case, but we're dealing with section 13(1) in that case. We're talking about the promotion of hate by telephone. We are talking about a very narrow ruling on the law that was not unanimous by the Supreme Court judges. We are not talking about something that can definitively be seen as justification for the removal of rights that this bill provides.
I come back to the question that the member for Richmond-Steveston put forward, and I think it's an excellent one. In her response, the minister says that the reason subsection 2(2) has removed the "subject to" with respect to the Civil Rights Protection Act is because that act, the minister tells us, has a prohibition against private correspondence. The minister is saying that in order to take care of the Civil Rights Protection Act she is amending the Human Rights Act through this bill. If the Civil Rights Protection Act is flawed, then amend the Civil Rights Protection Act. But that is not what we're doing. We are here to talk about the Human Rights Act. The Civil Rights Protection Act looks acceptable, certainly to members of the opposition, and I wonder if it hasn't got a lot more to do with the
[ Page 7663 ]
restructuring of the Ministry of Attorney General's portion of the justice system than it does with this particular bill.
With all due respect, it is just ridiculous to suggest that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the vehicle by which an individual who may be subjected to a complaint can appeal. If an author publishes a book that somebody finds offensive because they claim that it discriminates against them on the basis of marital status, family status, physical disability, ancestry, place of origin or any of the other kinds of things that are listed here, that person can file a complaint with the human rights council. If the human rights council hears it and says, "Yes, we happen to agree," where is the right of appeal? The minister is saying that it's simple: their rights are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the minister have any idea how long it takes a case to be heard under the Charter provisions and how expensive that process is? This is just ridiculous.
D. Lovick: Try the Criminal Code.
G. Wilson: The member is quite correct. We say that we want to look under the criminal statutes in B.C. I raise the point that has been raised time and time again: with the existing statutes you will find that most prosecutions on these questions were in fact under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and they had successful conviction.
D. Lovick: For whom?
G. Wilson: The very case that the government constantly quotes. Canada v. Taylor was a successful conviction.
The Chair: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo may enter the debate, but first be recognized.
[10:15]
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Keep the unruly member for Nanaimo in place. That's appreciated.
I'd like to come back to some wording that the minister needs to talk about before we even get into section 2(2). Perhaps the minister might want to give us the intent and also the minister's interpretation of the following wording. Section 2(1)(a) says: "...indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons...." Subsection (b) says: "...is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt...." The conjunctive there is "or." Those two do not have to be together. Therefore this is not just about hate literature. It may be the intention of the government to have it be about hate literature, but the fact is, it says discrimination or intention to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, etc. I caution the minister very clearly on that word "ancestry." Right now in British Columbia we are negotiating matters that deal specifically with the question of rights, privileges and jurisdictions on the basis of ancestries.
The bill then talks about marital status and family status. There are laws in B.C. today that do discriminate on the basis of marital status and family status, and those are likely to come immediately under the challenge procedures. It then goes on to talk about sex rather than gender, which is the normal kind of discussion we have. They're not talking about sexual orientation or age. This provision is very widespread and sweeping with respect to section 2(1)(a), which has nothing at all to do with hate literature. It "indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate" quite independent of the hate literature section under 2, because the conjunctive is "or" not "and," so it could be read separately.
This bill is ridiculous in the way it's drafted. Can the minister please explain to us how it is, if you take subsection (b) out, which is how we should read that or could read that, with the conjunctive being "or" not "and," that section 2(1)(a) "indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons" on the basis of their marital status? There are all kinds of provisions under the laws of the province of British Columbia that discriminate on the question of marital status, because we have an act that governs it. Can the minister tell us how that is going to fit into this provision in this bill?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member raised a number of points. I would like to try to deal with them by going back to some of his original points. He did speak about the Canadian Human Rights Act and noted that it had in fact been successfully used and had provided remedy for victims. That's the point I've been making throughout the whole evening; we don't have such legislation in British Columbia to cover those areas that are under our jurisdiction. I noted earlier that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not have an express freedom of expression clause, and indeed that is to make the point that we are dealing here with the Charter being the framework. Around the issue of the Charter, we do not....
Interjection.
Hon. A. Hagen: If I could continue, hon. member. I listened carefully to you. If you would just listen for a moment....
The Chair: Order, please. Due to the lateness of the hour, members may become testy at times. I hope that we will be even more conscientious and try to refrain from interjecting as much as possible.
Hon. A. Hagen: I did want to deal with the large number of issues that the member raised in his comments. When he tries to address me across the floor in a somewhat argumentative way, which may be due to the hour or to something in his nature -- I'm not sure which -- it's a little difficult for me to deal with the number of questions that he raised. I do want to deal with those.
He refers to the Charter as if it is a law that people will use. As I've noted earlier, it is in fact the framework
[ Page 7664 ]
-- one of the considerations that the council uses in balancing the issues that come forward to it.
The member asks about discrimination. He needs to look further into the Human Rights Act, which does deal with exemptions and special programs that are a part of the consideration of discrimination -- the basis for the whole Human Rights Act.
Let me come back to the overriding point. Before a complaint is accepted by the council, the council reviews very carefully, within the framework and the thresholds that it has established for all of its dealings with human rights complaints, whether that complaint is in fact one that can go forward within the amendment that we are dealing with.
We are dealing with balance. Clearly, we are dealing here with the intentions that are related to discrimination. I believe that the council, here and in other jurisdictions as well, has exemplified a very judicious approach to its task. Fundamentally, the basis for discrimination in this particular amendment is the same basis that exists for all of the discriminatory practices that are described in our Human Rights Act.
G. Wilson: Could the minister talk about the conjunctive "or"? Is it intended that sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) be read separately and independently in this act?
Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, it can be read separately. It can be discrimination, hatred or contempt, or it can be a combination.
V. Anderson: One other phrase that the minister has used fairly frequently tonight is "beyond reasonable limits." It would have been helpful if that phrase had been included somewhere in the act, since that's the intent that the minister has in mind. We find in 2(1)(b) the statement: "...is likely to expose a person...to hatred or contempt." If any word is vague or uncertain as to its meaning, "expose" is certainly that word. I'm not sure there are any of us who are able to grow up in any society where we do not learn to deal with hatred or contempt, nor am I sure we would want to. Sometime in our life we are going to have to deal with that in one form or another. So to say that a person should not be exposed to hatred or contempt is a very difficult expression. If you were to add to the end of the sentence "...to expose a person...to hatred or contempt" the phrase "beyond reasonable limits," which is what the minister has expressed on a number of occasions, and if there was some qualification of intent, then perhaps it would be easier to digest.
Perhaps the minister might explain to us what expose means in this particular situation. That's a very broad definition which needs to be put in there. Does this mean that if one has a private communication up in their house and invites guests or a meeting into their house, one will have to take down the particular posters or material which are up on that bulletin board? We may wish to do so, hon. Minister. I may not agree with many of the calendars and posters that I have found in garages and other places around the country, but where do we draw the line at an item that is for the private use of the workers at a place that is open to the public and which exposes the public to that circumstance or situation? Where does expose come in? What's the meaning of expose, and what's the intention, as the reader wants to know, of that particular word?
Hon. A. Hagen: I just note that the Canadian Human Rights Act, which the Liberal members have noted has been successfully used to deal with hate activity, uses the same language.
G. Wilson: That's true. It does. Likewise, it would seem that the existing legislation, unamended, would provide an equal provision in British Columbia -- subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which can also be used through the civil codes.
However, let's come back to a point. The conjunctive "or" means that we can in fact have section 2(1)(a) interpreted independently of (b). Just to refresh the minister's memory on what that means, under section 2(1)(a): "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons...because of the race, colour, ancestry" -- and so on.
We're now talking not about hate literature at all. We're talking about a publication that provides discrimination. There are obviously some standards in which our society provides reason for certain actions to be taken. With respect to this act, the way it reads is that nobody "shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication...." Then listen to this: it says you no longer are able to put up a "notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" that discriminates or intends to discriminate against a person because of their sex, marital status or family status. The minister should look at those words. Let's just assume that sex means we're talking about gender here, and I think we all are.
If you want to carry this to the absolute absurdity of this whole bill, now you can't even put up signs on washrooms that discriminate on the basis of one against the other. This bill says you can't put up a notice, sign or symbol that indicates discrimination or intention to discriminate against one group of people -- if you go to the absurd extreme in this thing, and granted, that is an absurd extreme -- on the basis of their gender. If you look at it, that's what this bill says. Obviously, nobody is going to turn around and take that to the obvious extreme that I just have.
Let's just back up a few paces from that. We can understand how these kinds of actions now can start to be interpreted with respect to the society in the province. You don't have to back up too far before you realize there are areas in which this bill is going to provide for tremendous constraints on society that ordinarily would be curbed by mutual coercive action -- not through human rights legislation. This has simply gone too far.
In the Human Rights Act that this is an amendment of, under the complaint section, section 11 -- which I
[ Page 7665 ]
understand we can't get in, but which is directly affected by this legislation -- the individual doesn't even have to lodge the complaint. The complaint can be lodged on their behalf. All they have to do is say: "I consent." The rest is done for them.
[10:30]
How far are we intending to go with a conjunctive "or" that doesn't even have anything to do with hate literature? We're talking now simply about discrimination. The conjunctive "or" has nothing whatsoever to do with hate literature, but is a simple question of distinctions or discriminations on the question of class or group -- something that society does without malice and retribution. Can the minister please explain why the words "marital status, family status" are included in this particular section?
Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps the member would like to note -- for instance, in one of the instances he cited -- that the Human Rights Act does deal with issues of public decency. There are in fact definitions within the act about discrimination, and there are exemptions, as well.
V. Anderson: We take for granted that the word "hatred" might be definable by most of us and that it is a word we all probably understand in that particular vein. I don't think that would be true for the word "contempt." I'm wondering if the minister, or someone on her behalf, might be able to express the meaning of contempt in this act. We probably have a greater understanding of "hatred" within the act than we do of the word "contempt." I don't know if we're using the word "contempt" in the sense of "in contempt of court." Is that the definition we're thinking of, or are we thinking of contempt in the sense of being contemptuous of an action of someody else? It's a word that might often be bantered back and forth in this House, except that the Speaker would rule it out of order.
I'm trying to get some understanding of the word "contempt," because it is a fundamental word; it's a counterbalanced word with the same kind of emotional or intellectual meaning as "hatred." Contempt is not always used in that kind of strength of emotion or balance. Could we have some indication of how that is used? We're talking about contempt as to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of a person, group or class of persons. When we use "contempt" in respect to all these different areas, it would be helpful if we could have some understanding of what the word means, implies or is intended to mean in this particular act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members will understand that on occasion the minister, as all ministers, requires a break for a moment or two.
In response to the question from the member, I think the minister has expressed her view earlier, which I share, that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly expressed its view in respect of the definitions of both words: "hatred" and "contempt." The minister has read the sections from Canada v. Taylor into the record, and I think that should suffice in providing the definitions that all members of the House would be happy with.
G. Wilson: I can't resist asking the senior law enforcement officer of the province a couple of questions on this. Again, the reason I wanted the minister to clarify the conjunctive "or" is because in Black's Law Dictionary "or" can be used as a conjunctive for treating the two separately. On rare occasions it can be used as an "and." I asked the minister specifically if (a) and (b) could be treated separately and independently, and the answer was yes. So we now know that "or" means that we can have section 2(1)(a) separate from section 2(1)(b).
Through the Chair to the Attorney General: does it mean that no person shall issue or display, as in section 1, the intention to discriminate on the question of family status? Does that mean that there's going to be some kind of prohibition against the advertisement of specific kinds of social actions, social events, various community functions and community organizations that talk about seniors only, for example, and where, in certain accommodations, there is exclusion of family members or people who have children, for example -- those kinds of things? Would that now be used as a functional part of this act? It clearly is discrimination on the basis of family status.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer has been provided to the House before, but let me try again. If there's a bona fide defence in the act, this section wouldn't apply. As I listen to the members in this debate, it seems to me that they are stretching the edges beyond any reasonable notion of reasonableness. What members need to do when reading one section of the bill is read the whole act. I think it's clear that the kinds of implications being insinuated by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast with regard to this amendment are just not appropriate.
G. Wilson: I have the act right in front of me. If you read "discrimination in public facilities," which I was just asking about -- and I assume that the Attorney General is probably more familiar with this than I am -- it says: "...because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability or sex of that person or class of persons unless the discrimination relates, in the case of sex, to the maintenance of public decency...." and so on. Then it goes on to talk about that. Nowhere in this act does it say anything about family status. Yet the amendment brought forward by the minister in this particular bill talks about family status. The question is: why?
Hon. A. Hagen: In the clause the member just referred to, family status is named.
V. Anderson: The Attorney General indicated that it is wise to read this particular amendment in relationship to other parts of the act. I was in the process of doing that. We discussed section 11 of the Human Rights Act a little while ago. It has an
[ Page 7666 ]
interesting phrase in here about a person who can bring complaints against other people. Any person at all can bring a complaint on behalf of an individual, a group or a class of persons. If they bring it on behalf of an individual, they have to have the consent of that individual in order for the B.C. Council on Human Rights to proceed. If they bring it on behalf of a group or class of people, they do not need the consent or agreement of that group or class of people to take that forward -- and that is in section 11(2)(b) -- if proceeding with the complaint is in the interest of the group or class on behalf of which the complaint is made. So it leaves it very wide open for an individual to make a complaint on behalf of a group, even if the group does not wish that or does not agree with them about bringing that complaint forward. It's up to the council to make the decision about whether or not that complaint should go forward. So once again with the way the amendment is written, we're opening a whole broad section of hatred or contempt and possible connection of complaints and actions to be brought forward. In that sense, I still ask the minister if she would define -- as I was doing earlier -- the meaning of "contempt" opposed to "hatred." Granted, we may understand the meaning of hatred, but not the meaning or power of the word "contempt" as it relates to all of the different categories that are part of this act.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, we're having some of last year's debate on the amendment to the Human Rights Act. I would ask the member in respect to his last question to refer to the Blues.
V. Anderson: Do I understand the minister to say she wanted me to repeat what I had asked? No?
Interjections.
V. Anderson: Fine. Okay.
Hon. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to section 2, which you have before you, and here is a copy to pass over to the minister. I propose that the following be added as section 3: "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."
The Chair: I have had an opportunity to look at your amendment, and regrettably I must state to the hon. member that the amendment re-enacts the current section 2 and expands its scope. The deletion of the subsection is an integral part of the amendment, therefore an amendment to reinstate it is contrary to the principle of the bill as it was agreed to at second reading. Therefore, hon. member, I would have to rule that your amendment is out of order.
G. Wilson: With respect to your ruling, we're back debating section 2 as it's in front of us. I'd like to come back to subsection (2), and the application to a private communication. Can the minister explain to us what the rationale is behind the application to a communication intended to be private to be excluded from the rather broad and intense description of the discrimination under section 2(1). What is it that we're trying to do with respect to the words "private communication" or "communication intended to be private"? Why exclude that from hate literature, if that's what this is all about?
Hon. A. Hagen: The intent is to deal with matters that are in the public domain.
G. Wilson: So the minister is saying that this bill is not going to try to address private correspondence that may be distributed or sent through private correspondence to a whole series of different people, who may be on a private mailing list that actively promotes hatred, the Aryan race or whatever, as long as that's done in a private communiqu�. But this bill will try to attack anything that may be public with respect to displays of that action as a result of such private communication. Is that what the minister is saying?
[10:45]
Hon. A. Hagen: As are all human rights acts, this act is fundamentally intended to deal with victims of discrimination. In this instance, that discrimination is experienced by people in the public domain.
G. Wilson: I have heard the minister talk about this, and in second reading debate we had some fairly lengthy discussion about how this is intended to help victims. Can the minister tell us what language in sections 2(1)(a) and (b) or section 2(2) specifically helps victims? What language here provides any greater protection to victims than the existing statute, either under the Human Rights Act or under the Civil Rights Protection Act?
Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, the expanded protections in the definition under section 2(b) from the former act protects people. We are dealing now with the protection against hatred and contempt as it affects people based on colour, race, ancestry or place of origin. As we have noted on many occasions, it also provides a remedy.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- or hon. Chair, as I will attempt to be gender-neutral in this description. The fact that we have added...again I come back to this conjunctive "or".... We are now saying that the question of hatred and contempt -- which is currently within the language of the Civil Rights Protection Act and is the standard language of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- is provided for within the existing legislation, which essentially says: "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate...." Does the fact that we have now put hatred and contempt in that provide some kind of additional recourse for the victim? Can the minister explain how that does that? Quite clearly that provides a greater avenue for recourse to a council, hand-appointed by government, to make representa-
[ Page 7667 ]
tion on what is going to be interpreted as the form of hatred or contempt.
We have heard a lot of commentary about how the existing bill is not adequate to deal with these kinds of situations. If we read carefully -- not just the conclusions of Justice Dickson on Canada v. Taylor, but if we read the reasoning behind it -- in the Canadian Human Rights Act the question of hatred and contempt is sufficiently vague and sufficiently broad to bring before that council many complainants who do not get satisfaction, because their cases are not even heard. In instances where those cases are brought before it, they are appealed through the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on the Human Rights Act, which in this province could be properly appealed under the Civil Rights Protection Act if we didn't take out the subject to clause in section 2(2). So the question of appeal for the individual if the human rights council doesn't rule in their favour is diminished, not increased, by this bill. Therefore the protection for the individual to seek litigation through the criminal court has been removed. Would the minister agree with that? If not, why would that not be the case?
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me first of all -- and this is repeating comments that I made earlier -- note that the current Human Rights Act only prohibits discriminatory advertisements for employment, housing, services and facilities. It provides no protection against hate propaganda and no remedy for the victims. The Civil Rights Protection Act, which, as members noted, has not been used in B.C., is a means through the courts. Unlike human rights legislation, it is inaccessible for most people, and never having been used since it was enacted in 1981, it is generally recognized as ineffective in dealing with this matter of hate literature and hate activity.
Finally, I note that the rulings of the B.C. Council of Human Rights are subject to judicial review as a means of extra protection for those who might seek that protection.
G. Wilson: Then I come back to my original point. If there is to be protection against hate literature -- if that's what we're attempting to do -- and if we're trying to deal with the question of hatred and contempt, then can the minister explain why, under section 2(1)(a), the conjunctive is "or" and not "and"? I've asked that before. Now it seems that the minister has argued directly that those two should be linked through the conjunctive "and" not "or," because you're able to read section 2(1)(a) independent of 2(1)(b). That creates a lot of difficulty in terms of when you can put up a sign or symbol that discriminates on the basis of gender, for example. Lots of signs are set up that discriminate on the basis of gender. It weakens the intent of this act.
Hon. A. Hagen: We want to deal with both; by dealing with both, we strengthen the act. We take things from the former clause, and we add and strengthen the protections that are there.
A. Warnke: I was particularly struck by the Chair's ruling on the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara. The ruling is one that obviously should be respected. The Chair made it very clear that the motion has to be rejected, based on the fact that it alters the intention of the bill. That's quite correct. I would accept that ruling.
On the other hand, the minister said earlier that deleting section 2(2) of the current law of the Human Rights Act was just a matter of cleanup -- that the intent and implication of withdrawing "subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject" would not alter it fundamentally. Yet the Chair ruled that the motion was exactly what was replicated in section 2(2) of the current Human Rights Act and indeed had the effect of altering the intention of the bill.
Therefore I would invite the minister again to.... Does this not send a clear signal that the clause, "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject," may be abrogated?
Hon. A. Hagen: No, hon. Chair.
A. Warnke: I also want to follow up on a point made by the member for Vancouver-Langara as to the meaning of "contempt." Given the minister's answer as to what comprises contempt, it actually confuses the matter. A strict definition of contempt -- and I'm not talking about contempt of court or contempt of many other things -- I'm talking about the term "contempt" as defined by Black's Law Dictionary: "a wilful disregard or disobedience of a public authority." In that context, the answer given by the minister just does not jive with the meaning in the law dictionary. How do you account for this discrepancy?
Hon. A. Hagen: There was a comment by the Supreme Court on this matter.
G. Wilson: If the minister is referring to Canada v. Taylor, that simply is not authoritative in this case. We heard the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs cite this as the authoritative case, and he rolled into his description the fact that the Canadian Bar Association advocated this type of legislation, which is simply not true. I spoke to the president of the Canadian Bar Association, and they have made no comment, pro or con, on this legislation.
The minister then went on to say why the jurisprudence that was cited advocates that you don't need to put back, I think he said -- I could go back through Hansard to prove that to be so -- the words: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may...." and so on. We attempted in the amendment to find a compromise for this minister that would have allowed the government to put in place the hatred and contempt language, which they want to put into section 2, at the same time recognizing the opportunity for someone to freely express their opinions subject to an existing statute, the Civil Rights Protection Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Attorney General and has ample
[ Page 7668 ]
prohibition against the kind of thing that this bill is trying to deal with.
I simply don't understand why the minister will not recognize that this is a simple and proper compromise that will protect freedom of expression in the province. It would appear that this is designed, especially with the use of the conjunctive "or".... I bring that up again, because mark my words, it is going to be a problem when this bill is interpreted. Notwithstanding private correspondence, it is the intention of this government to remove one's right to freely express opinions on a subject unless it's okay with the human rights council. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. A. Hagen: I find it difficult that the member does not understand that no legislation can abrogate the Charter.
G. Wilson: I didn't say that any legislation would abrogate the Charter. To use the minister's own words, the Charter is essentially a provision that provides guidance with respect to what is permitted within the constitution of Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are federal statutes. We're talking about two provincial statutes, the Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Protection Act. Let's not confuse those.
The point is, this constrains freedom of expression in B.C. By the minister's own admission, it does that. This says that the human rights council gets to be the policeman who says whether what I think and say is okay, with an appeal process where the individual who feels slighted doesn't even have to launch the appeal. If you read what's required in this bill in terms of setting out a complaint, somebody can say: "You know, I think you've been slighted. I'd better take an appeal on your behalf." If the individual says "Yes, maybe you're right," they can proceed. Once this thought-police has decided whether or not what I've said indeed constitutes a problem, and with my name and reputation already exposed to the public, I have then to go through a lengthy, expensive fight under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a federal court.
[11:00]
Is that what the minister wants in this bill? That's exactly what the minister is going to get. If that isn't want she wants, can the minister explain to me where I'm wrong in the scenario that I've just put out?
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, every piece of legislation is subject to the Charter, but it's not a separate piece of legislation that someone takes to the courts. Fundamentally, no legislation that we pass or the federal government passes may abrogate the rights guaranteed under the Charter. That's clearly stated, and we're talking about the constitution of our country. Let me just remind the members that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by the law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Secondly, everyone has fundamental freedoms under the Charter: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. The human rights council must balance that constitutional prescription or requirement with this amendment and its decision around hearing any complaints that are brought to it. Provincial and federal legislation is bound by that Charter and by those conditions.
The member keeps referring to something we have talked about over and over again in this lengthy debate. I want to say again that no legislation, including this human rights amendment, may abrogate the rights under the Charter. I've read the first two clauses of the Charter, which most of us have come to know and recognize as part of the balance that we are dealing with, and which the human rights council, in dealing with this amendment, will have as the framework for their decisions and actions as well.
G. Wilson: Believe me, hon. Chair, I know that. But I also know that in the province of Quebec there was a sign bill which required all signs in the province to be in one language, French. Notwithstanding -- and notwithstanding is an interesting word in this debate -- the rights and the Charter protections, that was in fact in place.
We understand the question of the federal Charter and its protections. The point is: when do we have that ruled on -- before or after somebody has taken my name or another's name in front of the human rights council on behalf of whatever organization, group or the individual himself or herself, because of what I have thought and said or what has been written in an editorial comment or what has been put out on the airwaves in radio broadcast or what has been displayed in a poster demonstrating a dance troupe or what has been placed on the walls advertising a student protest group or whatever it may be that may be deemed to be contentious?
Let me again give the minister the example of the fisheries coalition, who are now campaigning against the aboriginal fisheries strategy. They are putting out material that they believe to be an accurate representation of the distinctions made between the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the non-aboriginal fisheries strategy, which some people are arguing is racist in intent.
When do we get to see whether their right to put out that publication is a provision of the Charter? Do we get to challenge this before the human rights council, and then do they have to appeal that? Is the human rights council going to make that determination, or do they have a free right to express their political or personal opinions with respect to that question? I know the minister said it's not helpful to bring this into the debate, but this is what this bill is all about.
I recognize that the Charter is supreme. But we're talking about made-in-British-Columbia legislation that is going to be tested in British Columbia by British Columbians. You're going to have people brought before the human rights council in a public manner under a process that is already explained, where they
[ Page 7669 ]
don't even have to be the complainant. They could have somebody do it on their behalf; all they have to do is say yes. That council has to make decisions on whether what somebody thinks and says or writes is going to be acceptable in the province of B.C. Does the minister really think that a handpicked government council should be determining what is in the public interest of B.C.?
Hon. A. Hagen: What I think British Columbians deserve in their human rights legislation is the same kind of protection that exists in the legislation of every other province and in the Canadian jurisdiction. This amendment provides that protection within the context of the Charter and the same laws and jurisprudence that apply to every other part of the country.
I also believe, as I have said before, that our Council of Human Rights will exercise its role with the due diligence that it has exhibited and that other human rights councils have exhibited. It's a balance that we recognize. The members opposite are, in fact, suggesting that we should not have human rights legislation available to citizens. There's no other conclusion that I can come to out of this debate. We are bringing our legislation into a contemporary context with other jurisdictions in our land which have had such legislation for a very long time.
D. Symons: I'd like to revisit some of the arguments from just a few minutes back. In responding to some situations which were described as possibly coming before the Council of Human Rights, the minister simply dismissed them saying that it's not likely to happen. But I think that is precisely the type of situation that will come before the council. This bill is opening up many things that are really going to deluge the council with all sorts of problems that I think were not intended by the minister in bringing this forth.
We certainly agree with the intent of trying to abolish hate literature and discrimination. But to give you another example: again taking a religious situation, because I think this is one area where it's going to come forth, let us suppose that a particular church has rather strong feelings against people who are homosexual. They will use the Bible in one way or another to justify their position on this. They may indeed have literature and pass out a leaflet during a church service, or they may mail it out and even have an article in the paper regarding it. That sort of issue will come forth, and it's certainly going to be contrary to section 2(1)(a), where it says "indicates discrimination." Then the conjunction "or" comes in this particular line that the member is referring to in a different place. The "or" at that point means that it just has to indicate discrimination; it does not mean that there is intent to discriminate. The "or" here says: "...or an intention to discriminate." So again because of that "or" that the member is referring to in a different place, we have this situation. The intent does not have to be there.
Through ignorance or anything else, it is quite possible that people will be brought before this council because some group will take offence at what is said. Indeed, I would agree with the people of a particular sexual orientation who might take offence to some of the things that are said about their particular lifestyle. That will come before the Council of Human Rights. You're going to end up with piles of those situations that the council is going to have to deal with. You may find the same thing with people who are living together without the benefit of marriage. They can be discriminated against in some literature because people feel that is immoral. Again, that is something else that could come before the council as a class action where you don't need the consent of all the individuals who are being discriminated against in that literature. Simply because of the fact that it has been written, somebody will bring it forth. You're going to open up a real can of worms that I don't think was intended.
So you have to be extremely careful of the usage of the words in this bill. I really think that it should be looked at again and possibly brought a little more in line with the other jurisdictions you mention, so that we won't have the problems that I don't believe are the case in the other jurisdictions that you keep comparing this to.
Hon. A. Hagen: Just to briefly respond, we do have some indication from other jurisdictions around the use of such clauses. Although that can't guide us in British Columbia, there is not a large number of cases coming forward. I'm not going to comment on specific cases, because that's not an appropriate thing for me to do. The members may want to look at exemptions under section 19 of the Human Rights Act and note too that laws around violence or hatred apply to all institutions in society. I believe that both those exemptions in that general recognition is something we're all aware of.
V. Anderson: Referring to section 2(2), regarding private communication or a communication intended to be private, one of the instances that comes to mind is when someone has written a private or personal letter to another person, it would be considered to be hate literature or discriminatory literature once it was out in the public realm. If the press or someone else other than the original writer was to pick that up and use that private communication in a public medium, where does that kind of action come under this particular act? It's a communication intended to be private, but it is picked up and used in a public way -- in a way that private materials, as we know, are often used. Are we saying, then, that the person who wrote the article or the person who made it public is the person who comes under the particular part of this act?
Hon. A. Hagen: The clause indicates that if the communication is intended to be private, it is not covered under the amendment.
V. Anderson: If I understand the minister, she's saying that if a private communication were to be picked up by someone other than the two people who were communicating with each other and was published in a public way as a letter, then that would be perfectly okay, and there would be no fault to that. So if
[ Page 7670 ]
you want to get your message out, you make it private and then hope somebody picks it up and publishes it. Is that my understanding of what the minister is saying?
The Chair: On section 2, the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara continues, followed by the hon. member for Richmond Centre, then the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and perhaps the member for Okanagan West.
V. Anderson: I was also looking at the implications -- and I think it's important we look at these -- of 2(1)(b): "...is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt...." This came up in reference to protection of victims. If I understand rightly, this particular clause could be used even before there were any victims. The very fact that a publication exists could be used against them, if it's picked up. We have to be careful about how these things are used. As the minister has indicated on a number of occasions, we are operating in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is one of our main concerns that that particular awareness should be there in any guidance or direction that we give to the council. The context and the guidance of the direction should not only be clear to the council but it should be clear to all people who want to use the act for their own purposes, whether the purposes are justified or unjustified.
We have to remember that the act will be used not only by those who, in our opinion, are trying to right a wrong and protect a victim, but it will be used by those who consider themselves victims -- and who we think are the perpetrators -- to protect themselves against other people who are trying to control them. The act can be used in both directions. It is important that we have the context and the guidelines clear.
[11:15]
Hon. Chair, I move the amendment before you -- and ask you to pass a copy to the minister, if you haven't already done so -- to section 2, that the following be added as subsection (3): "Subsections (1) and (2) must be interpreted under section 2, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
The Chair: In effect, the member's motion attempts to reintroduce the motion which he previously put, which is indirectly attempting to do what has been directly ruled out of order. I so rule that the member's motion is out of order.
D. Symons: I have a very brief comment in regard to the minister's answer to one question to section 2(1)(a). The minister indicated that there had to be intention, but if you read 2(1)(a), it says "indicates discrimination," and then there is an "or." That means there does not have to be intention. All it means is that discrimination was indicated. Then you come to "or an intention to discriminate." There you can have the intent to discriminate, but no discrimination takes place. We have a very funny situation here. If it indicates discrimination without intention, they are still guilty. On the other hand, if they intend to discriminate but fall short of their intention, they are still guilty.
Hon. A. Hagen: I think I might explain by just stating that if someone puts a sign up in the window that says, "We do not intend to discriminate against a particular group of people," that could be classified as discrimination, whether or not people are trying to absolve themselves of intention. Discrimination is in the action itself or in the intention that that action represents.
C. Serwa: I don't think tonight is a very proud night for government: debating an important human rights amendment act at 11:20 p.m. and trying to get a reading from Committee of the Whole at this time, especially with human rights legislation. Legislation by exhaustion is hardly a noble effort. Nevertheless, on section 2(1)(b), would the minister be kind enough to explain "is likely to"? It's a very interesting little catchphrase, which is seemingly very subjective. I suppose the origin of most of this was the 1984 thought-control process.
Hon. A. Hagen: The hon. member has just arrived. I believe we did address this earlier. But in case we didn't, it's a matter of probability.
C. Serwa: "In all probability" seems to be very subject. It's likely to expose a person, group or class of persons to hatred or contempt. I often refer to you as socialists. Would that commit me to a form of discrimination under this particular section?
Interjection.
The Chair: Order. The hon. member for Okanagan West continues.
C. Serwa: I said that I refer to you as socialists, and you may find that that's a discriminatory term. You're a group, and I'm identifying a group. It seems that it's wrong to identify any group, and it's wrong to identify gender. Perhaps the minister would clarify whether that would be subject to this particular act?
Hon. A. Hagen: I would hope that the hon. member was not intending to expose me to hatred with that particular comment.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister would elaborate on the concern regarding contempt with respect to the particular question I addressed about identifying your party. I'm concerned with the type of latitude you have here. With your thought-control intentions and process, you could rapidly identify that and you could then control it. That's the concern we have over here. There's no question that this is a very important amendment. I guess that the sense of direction and the intent are noble, and I think we all agree with it. But the expansion in the latitude that you're given is subject only to the government's will and disposition, and I have very little confidence in that. So I am trying to find
[ Page 7671 ]
out if that form of contempt is going to be attended to under the act.
Hon. A. Hagen: I have two things, hon. Chair. Political belief is not covered. Let me just again quote something the member could read in the Blues. He has just arrived, but if he had been here earlier in the debate, he would have heard this: "...there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section" dealing with hatred and contempt. This, again, is from the Taylor decision that we've quoted on a number of occasions. I would really encourage the hon. member to go back and avail himself of the very extensive debate that has occurred throughout the evening on this matter.
C. Serwa: I notice that there is certainly a dearth of government members attending what I consider to be a very important debate on an important piece of legislation. It is interesting that a group that professes to be very democratic by nature would be bringing in a piece of legislation which in fact is not very democratic, realistic or balanced. The minister is having a great deal of fun but is unable to answer the questions I'm asking in a satisfactory manner. So be it. The insolence of the minister is being conveyed to the public. They can clearly see the latitude allowed under this particular act.
I ask again for the definition of "contempt" with respect to this. It's not listed under any legislation. Contempt conveys a wide latitude in meaning. How do you identify the degree of contempt? Any form of naming is, to a degree, discrimination. Would the minister care to clarify the definition of "contempt" which will be utilized to the degree of contempt.
Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Chair, I think you will agree that we have canvassed this subject quite exhaustively in the last three and a half hours of debate. I refer the member to any number of references that he will find in the Blues with respect to this debate.
G. Wilson: A few minutes ago the minister said that what this does is bring it into relationship or parity with every other human rights act in every other province in Canada. So I thought we might look at the human rights legislation in every other province in Canada.
In the Alberta bill I notice with interest that there is a provision under section 1(1)(d) that provides for "freedom of speech," and one under section 1(1)(f) for "freedom of the press." These are stipulated clearly in the Alberta bill.
If we take a look at the section under New Brunswick's Human Rights Act, we see that notwithstanding the bill, this section essentially does not limit the right of an individual to the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech. It doesn't say "speech," but "freedom of expression" is similar.
Flip, Mr. Chairman, to the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in the province of Quebec. In the preamble it says: "Whereas every human being possesses intrinsic rights and freedoms designed to ensure his protection and development...." It goes on to talk about equality, worth and dignity; rights and freedoms constituting a foundation of justice and peace; rights and freedoms being inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and their common well-being; and how that Charter provision is protected. If you look at Quebec, you will see that the exercise of rights and freedoms once again provides for freedom of speech.
Mr. Chairman, I've only glanced at a handful of the provinces. I find that what the minister has just alluded to is not quite correct. I thought that we could look at Ontario, given that this is a 1991 statute and there may have been some revisions. If there are, I would stand corrected. One of the things in the Ontario human rights bill is interesting, because it was raised in second reading. Take a look at the way they deal with this issue in Ontario. If you look under section 31, you see that in the enforcement and investigation provisions under section 32, there is an onus of proof established in Ontario. The fact that an onus of proof is established through the investigation of complaints and the enforcement section under the functions of this commission provides an inherent understanding of freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The onus is to prove that there was intent to promote hatred in what was said.
Look at that in comparison to the Human Rights Act in British Columbia, where the opportunity to file a complaint is extremely easy under this provision. The reason why there is not direct representation with respect to freedom of speech in Ontario is because the ease with which complaints can be brought is guarded; in the legislation there is an intent respect for some protection.
I come back to the minister's commentary about the removal of the subject clause to the Civil Rights Protection Act. We note also that in looking at the other provinces across Canada, they do not have a similar civil litigation process that runs in combination with a criminal litigation process. This is a unique situation in this province.
The uniqueness is not so much the question of the provision of freedom of expression; the uniqueness is the fact that the people of British Columbia can take two courses of action because of the current act. Section 2.1 and section 2.2 provide for criminal action against any kind of hate literature or promotion of hatred, which is prohibited by this act. With respect to the minister's statement that this brings us to the same level of equality of other provinces, what acts in the other provinces was she referring to?
Hon. A. Hagen: Let me just deal with the freedom of expression matter. I have repeatedly made the point that freedom of expression clauses in the human rights legislation of other provinces predates the Charter. Let me just read them: "Alberta, 1972; Saskatchewan, 1965; Ontario, 1970; Quebec, 1975; New Brunswick, 1973; Nova Scotia, 1969; Prince Edward Island, 1968; Newfoundland, 1970." Again, I just note that the constitutional Charter of Rights is stronger and
[ Page 7672 ]
supersedes statutory rights, and we've made reference to the role of the Charter as a framework for our legislation.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister can tell us if the dates that she just read out are the dates when those acts were first brought to the legislatures, or whether they are dates of consolidated amendments that have taken place up to 1992.
Hon. A. Hagen: As I understand it, they are the dates when these freedom-of-expression statutes were brought into law, noting that we didn't have the superseding authority of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at that time. That Charter, of course, is dated 1982.
G. Wilson: But the minister will freely accept, notwithstanding the dates that those bills were introduced, that they have had subsequent amendments as recently as 1991. Those amendments are all post-Charter arrivals in Canada. Is that correct?
[11:30]
Hon. A. Hagen: We are dealing, though, with the clauses on freedom of expression. It's my understanding that those have not been substantially changed.
G. Wilson: So is it mine. I am dealing with amendments on the ability of an appointed council to represent the public interest with respect to freedom of expression. It's not just the question of one's freedom of expression, which we all know is covered under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and we have been told ad nauseam that that is the case. What we are dealing with is a government-appointed board that makes a determination prior to an appeal to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendments to the acts, with respect to the board's right to rule on those questions, have all taken place post-1982. And with the human rights acts -- in some provinces it is called the Bill of Rights -- we note that many provinces in this country have explicit protection of freedom of expression and freedom of thought.
D. Symons: I mentioned earlier that I had some concerns with section 2(1)(a), where it says, "indicates discrimination" and then the word "or" meant that there didn't have to be an "intention" to discriminate. I would hope it is the intent of the government that there should be some intention on the part of those who are discriminating before we prosecute them. So I would move an amendment that we omit the word "or" after "indicates discrimination" and replace that with the word "with," so that it will read "indicates discrimination with an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons."
The Chair: Will the hon. member please proceed. We will consider your amendment.
D. Symons: Simply doing that will make it perfectly clear that we're after people who are intending to discriminate, because it indicates discrimination with the intention. The way it reads now, it can indicate discrimination without the intention; or, it can indicate the intention to discriminate but not discrimination actually taking place. This will tie the two together and make it so that both the intention and the discrimination are there. I will await a ruling from the Chair.
The Chair: Hon. member, in considering your amendment, the Chair finds that it changes the meaning of that section and therefore would be out of order. The member wishes to continue?
D. Symons: On the ruling of the Chair, I would ask the minister if the bill's intent is indeed that there need not be the intention to discriminate, so that you will be interested in going after people when the intention is not there. Is that the intent of this?
Hon. A. Hagen: What is relevant is the effect, and the courts have clearly indicated that intention to discriminate is not essential to the term; it is the effect. So we are dealing with both of those as important parts of the amendment, with each significant in its own right.
G. Wilson: I just thought I might add for the record that in the home and birthplace of the CCF, Saskatchewan itself, the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights suggests: "Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and belief, and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship." That act, which has been amended many times up till the last couple of years, contains a provision of complaint that respects every individual's right and freedom to express their views.
Clearly, this bill is restrictive in its intent, it is prohibitive toward people freely expressing their opinion, and it doesn't bring us parallel to the other provinces. In fact, it is a less protective bill with respect to freedom of expression, notwithstanding the fact that we are trying to get rid of these prohibitions.
I wonder if the minister might comment on yet another attempt to bring some reason to this debate through an amendment. Notwithstanding the protection of private correspondence, which the minister has said is necessary because of the possible Charter challenge -- and I understand that may be the problem -- and because this government, for whatever reason, does not desire to use the Civil Rights Protection Act as a vehicle, would the minister not recognize a simple amendment to section 2(2) that says, "Notwithstanding section 1, but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his or her opinions on a subject," and then add in the section currently under amendment that private correspondence is not subject to section 2(1) of the bill? If that were done, the intent of this bill and the right to freedom of speech would be maintained. Indeed, if that weren't acceptable, maybe the minister could recognize -- notwithstanding that freedom of speech and
[ Page 7673 ]
expression is something to protect in British Columbia -- that even a removal of the Civil Rights Protection Act would still not prohibit someone from taking that course of action. The minister may want to remove that but maintain the protection of freedom of expression and speech. We're now seeking ways to try to make this bill more palatable to the majority of British Columbians, who -- certainly in our communications -- have told us this government has simply gone too far.
Hon. A. Hagen: This amendment does not limit freedom of expression. It protects people against hatred and contempt.
Let me note that I'm proud the Saskatchewan government has among the strongest legislations in respect to this kind of protection. The bill that the member is referring to came out of the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights under a New Democrat government in 1965. We've finally come into the right century.
G. Wilson: That's true, and we look forward to the time that they come into the same decade. We're recognizing that that '65 legislation is clearly something that is going to be protected in Saskatchewan. Under their own bill they've protected it and maintained the right of freedom of expression and thought.
I just don't understand why this minister does not recognize that a simple amendment to this bill would solve the concerns and problems that have been expressed by many British Columbians -- by people involved in the Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Bar Association, which is currently reviewing this legislation, notwithstanding what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tried to tell us the other day; and the B.C. Press Council, which has its concerns. Surely to goodness, if this government isn't prepared to listen to the opposition members, it is prepared to listen to the concerns of the British Columbian citizens it purports to represent and move to one of the timely amendments that we're bringing forward. It should not push us into debate into the early hours of the morning, where we are simply trying to get a piece of legislation that's flawed in its intent -- excuse me, flawed in its wording but honourable in its intent -- amended so that it's acceptable to the vast majority of British Columbians.
D. Symons: As with Cinderella, I find that at midnight my coach turns to a pumpkin and my clothes will turn to rags. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
[11:45]
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 10 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Wilson |
|
Serwa |
Neufeld |
Symons |
|
Tanner |
Warnke |
Anderson |
| Tyabji | ||
| NAYS -- 26 | ||
|
Marzari |
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Hagen |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Zirnhelt |
B. Jones |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Randall |
|
Garden |
|
Janssen |
On section 2.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, if I could complete my survey and journey across Canada, we could look at the Yukon, the jurisdiction immediately to the north. In case the minister is under the misapprehension that this legislation came in prior to 1982, this was introduced in 1987. Even the Yukon, the frontier to the north, under part 1, section 3, says: "Every individual and every...group shall, in accordance with the law, enjoy the right to freedom of religion, conscience, opinion and belief." Then they go even one step further -- it is quite remarkable that they would have done this -- and say: "Every group shall, in accordance with the law, enjoy the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Even the frontier of the Yukon has the direct expression of the freedom of thought and one's ability to communicate that thought in their human rights legislation.
Clearly, when the minister says that this brings us in line with every other bill across Canada -- and I've just gone through legislation from Alberta, the Maritimes to the Yukon and read the provisions of the human rights councils of Ontario, Quebec and even the great bastion of CCFism, Saskatchewan -- this bill is clearly not in line with legislation across Canada. It would seem to me that this government is attempting, at this late stage of the game, through exhaustion, to remove any kind of sensibleness in the debate to amend this bill and provide greater protection for freedom of expression. If the minister is not prepared to entertain such amendments, I suspect this is going to come home to roost on this government, which I'm sure the opposition will enjoy after the next election.
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, I want to draw attention....
Interjections.
A. Warnke: There's a real conflict in here between the accolades on one side and people telling people to go to sleep on the other. What a mixed review.
Hon. Chair, the comment I'd like to make is a quotation....
Interjections.
[ Page 7674 ]
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, I'll just wait until everybody has a chance to chat and talk and what not, and I'll have a sip in the meantime.
The Chair: Order, please.
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, it's really quite a competition to see who can get evicted out of this House as soon as possible. I realize everybody's getting tired.
There is one quotation I want to put forward: "No one shall put into circulation any allegation that is likely to display a person to wilful disregard." I don't know whether people have really quite understood it, but that quotation is really a deduction from a number of new terms that have been introduced in this particular legislation. We've already dealt with "issue," but if you take a look at "issue" in a legal context -- and I'm referring here to Black's Law Dictionary -- it means to put into circulation. "Issue" is a new term in this legislation. If you take a look at "statement," a new term in this legislation, it means an allegation. "Likely to expose." Watch that "likely" business, because what does that mean? That's pretty darned vague. You're likely to do this; but you're more likely to do that. "Likely to expose." Expose means to show publicly or display. Finally, the fourth term, "contempt." Indeed, "contempt" has been a part of the discussion here tonight, a term which the minister has yet to define. Contempt, in a legal context, means a wilful disregard.
Henceforth, if you put those terms together that can be used in a legal context and have a legal definition -- issue, statement, expose and contempt -- and you read the legislation that's being proposed before us, this Human Rights Amendment Act, you can actually extract from that: "No person shall issue any statement that is likely to expose a person to contempt." Or to put it in plain ordinary language: "No one shall put into circulation any allegation that is likely to display a person to wilful disregard." Hon. Chair, I almost rest my case that this the most ridiculous piece of legislation that has been put forward in this House.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
J. Tyabji: It's nice to see so many members participating in the debate so late at night.
A little earlier we started to canvass the potential safeguards against mischief being used. For example, under section 2(1)(b) we are talking about hatred or contempt. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast kept talking about discrimination and the fact that we've got an "or" there; it's either/or, it doesn't have to be both of them; we can have either of them separately. We started to talk a little about the potential for mischief in the event of discrimination on the basis of family status, for example, because a single-parent family is accorded certain rights under existing legislation because it's a single-parent family, whereas a dual-parent family is accorded certain rights. What is to prevent mischievous use of this legislation? The minister said a little earlier that these things will be determined by the human rights council. How much money is it going to cost the system to have these things dismissed, or if we end up -- as I might suspect we would -- having a redrafting of a lot of the existing legislation?
Social Services is a ministry that comes to mind right away. There is a lot of determination of funding on the basis of the classification of the family. It would be very easy for someone to come forward and say: "Well, my family is classified differently. That's a form of discrimination. I want my family to be eligible." The legislation would have to be rewritten on the basis of income, for example. Would that have to be indexed on an annual basis? How do you determine that? Why would we open ourselves up to such a loose interpretation where the government is going to be incurring major costs just to deal with the interpretation of section 2(1)(a) by itself or section 2(1)(b) by itself? Why -- and I don't believe the minister answered this adequately -- is family status in there when it can be so problematic in the long term?
Hon. A. Hagen: It's an amendment to an existing statute. I realize that people need to be able to put it into context. Let me just go back: "No person without a bona fide and reasonable justification shall discriminate." There is also a section dealing with a decision not to proceed with an investigation, which deals with a complaint that is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. So there are safeguards within the broad legislation that deal with this amendment, along with all of the other elements of the legislation currently in place.
J. Tyabji: That's not reassuring, because who determines bona fide and reasonable, and what's the process of determination? How much does it cost the system just to dismiss somebody who comes before the human rights council saying that this is legitimate discrimination? I want to give the minister an example of a case I know of. There was a person who had applied for a job, but because of the ministry setting a certain internal quota -- in this situation it happened to be a gender quota -- he didn't get the job, even though he was short-listed and ended up at the top of the list. Now that's a situation where obviously he's going to come forward and say that that was discrimination.
I know we're talking about publications and issuing and displaying them, but that person could very easily contend that the ministry itself was using a form of discrimination. If there can be -- and in his case there was -- some internal correspondence that supported a person's allegation that there was discrimination, then could the ministry itself be charged with the publication of something that was discriminatory? Wouldn't any kind of gender-quota memo in the ministry also be subject to this very bill? If a member of the public wanted to take it to the human rights council, wouldn't that be a bit of a conflict of interest for the council to try to rule on something like a gender quota within this ministry? If those people are appointed with a partisan perspective, like this government has, they
[ Page 7675 ]
might personally subscribe to gender quotas, so they inherently are already discriminating before the person even appears before them. Does the minister have a comment on that?
Hon. A. Hagen: I hesitated to interrupt the member, hon. Chair, but we're dealing with the broad range of the legislation. I will respond by just noting that employment equity programs are part of the legislation. But we really are ranging widely out of the ambit of this amendment. We're not debating human rights legislation as a whole, but a particular amendment -- and we're certainly not debating estimates at this time.
The Chair: I think the committee would do well to keep in mind that we are in committee on the bill. While we've strayed somewhat over the course of the evening, I would like to encourage members to try and address the section that is before us: section 2 of Bill 33.
[12:00]
J. Tyabji: I just want to clarify what I'm referring to. We've got here: "No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons...." That seems to me to say that no ministry can issue anything that indicates any kind of hiring preference on the basis of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons. That's how I read it. Could the minister please tell me how I'm misinterpreting what I'm reading, because it doesn't seem like it could be any more clear than it is?
Why has the minister left the conjunction "or" in there, rather than switching it to "with," as the member for Richmond Centre said, or "and," as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast recommended?
Hon. A. Hagen: The member must read this amendment in the context of the whole act. I refer her to clause 19.1, "Special programs," which deals with discrimination, saying that it is not discrimination or a contravention of this act to plan or implement an employment equity program, and there are other clauses in the act like this. So you must read this amendment in the context of the whole bill. It is an amendment, and it is placed within all of the clauses of the Human Rights Act which presently exist.
J. Tyabji: I will admit to the minister that I don't have the details of the main act, but it seems to me that what we're debating right now is selective discrimination. Some discrimination will be allowed and some won't, and the council is therefore going to determine that employment equity standards are okay. Right away we're hitting a bit of a contradiction.
Going back to my earlier question, what will it cost the system if this amendment is used for mischievous purposes? For example, about a week ago women's groups were saying that the new prime minister is a traitor to women. That comment was based on her sex. Is this the sort of thing where the women's group could be charged with discrimination on the basis of the bill? If it did go to the human rights council and they threw it out, how much would it cost the system? Is that the kind of thing this bill is intended to address?
Hon. A. Hagen: I did note earlier when the member was out that political affiliations are not a part of this particular clause.
G. Wilson: As an addendum to the question from the member for Okanagan East, the minister said that it's covered under section 19.1. Presumably that's the quota system favoured by this government. Since section 19.1 has been introduced into the debate by the minister, what that section says, Mr. Chairman....
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair.
G. Wilson: Excuse me; I don't want to discriminate on the basis of your gender, so I'm going to use "hon. Chair."
We're talking here about government quotas. I want the minister to tell us which of the following adjectives describes this government: Charitable -- no, clearly not that; philanthropic -- certainly not; educational -- hardly; fraternal -- no; religious -- that's possible; social organization or....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: That's what it says.
Hon. A. Hagen: On a point of order, hon. Chair. Just to draw the member to order, he's not reading from the clause that I quoted.
G. Wilson: The minister said that it was covered under section 19.1(1), and that's what I'm reading. Possibly what was expected was section 19.1(2), which talks about the council approving any program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups. That may be what the minister was dealing with.
Coming back to the question of the conjunctive "or," there is absolutely no question that this bill has been drafted in the absence, it would appear, of any legal opinion of any description with respect to the wording in relation to that conjunctive between (a) and (b). As the minister has already said, you can read them separately; therefore you can read section 2(1)(a) in relation to the paragraph below, separate from section 2(1)(b). The minister said that this brings us in line with every other human rights act across Canada, and I've just demonstrated that this is not the case.
Lastly -- given the hour, the intransigence of this government and their determination to ramrod this thing through, this will clearly be my last comment -- subsection 2(2) says: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication...." In my judgment, this puts
[ Page 7676 ]
in place a double standard that's hard to defend. It says that if you develop some kind of private mailing list, then through a mail order catalogue or a mail order house you can distribute hate literature intended to be private between the sender and the person receiving it. "Dear Homeowner: This is for your private distribution only. Please do not share it with anybody other than those you might wish to share it with." That's okay under this, but freedom of expression as protected under the Civil Rights Protection Act and provided for under section 2.1, isn't okay. That is a completely indefensible position for this government to be in, where they've essentially removed the right and freedom of thought and expression in this province as stipulated in the existing act. I find that most regrettable, and this government will find it so when the people of this province realize what they've just done.
J. Tyabji: Just a question in terms of the procedure of the discussion that we were having before. In the main act, we talked a bit about disadvantaged groups, and we've talked about discrimination a lot in this act. Then we find when we cross-reference it -- although I don't have the main bill, because our copies researcher over there is, of course, doing all the background work for this -- there's selective discrimination at work. There is a certain definition of disadvantaged groups that is actually driving the.... When we list race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age, in the main act, there's some presumption as to how those classifications are determined in disadvantaged groups. At what point does the definition of "disadvantaged groups" change to allow for no discrimination in terms of "these people are disadvantaged and these are not." Because the minister has referred back to the main act, does this mean that some people under the Human Rights Act have more rights that others? Those people who are presumed to be disadvantaged automatically have more rights than those who are presumed not to be disadvantaged, rather than having equal rights for everyone under the Human Rights Act.
Hon. A. Hagen: You don't have to be disadvantaged to be protected under this legislation. This legislation is designed to protect people -- not necessarily people who are disadvantaged -- on the basis of the various categories or qualities that you've just read.
J. Tyabji: On that basis then, if it's meant to protect all people equally, what if you had a man who was passed over for a job because of an equity program brought forward by the ministry that was in written form -- let's say they published something in the newspaper. Of course it's against the Charter of Rights to actually advertise that you want one gender over another. But if there were an equity program in place and an internal memo were distributed, or something of that nature, would that man have equal rights under this bill, as a woman would if she had been passed over for a job in favour of a man?
Hon. A. Hagen: We're dealing with some other parts of the legislation that are related to employment equity. Employment equity is one of the ways in which we do deal with equality -- just as equality is an underpinning of this particular amendment.
J. Tyabji: But can the minister not admit that if we're going to be talking about discrimination.... The difference between one person being accorded a certain set of protections and rights under the bill, and another person not having those same rights because of something in the bill that makes an allusion to that person being considered disadvantaged for the purposes of the act.... That's an arbitrary designation -- disadvantaged. For example, I would probably fall into the category of disadvantaged, not by choice but by classification, and therefore would have more rights under this bill than actually all the members of my caucus who are here, based on the classification that this bill gives them. Now, when I'm talking about the discriminatory publication, the minister has admitted that this discriminatory publication is discriminatory.
I would just like to get on the record when we're talking about all these things that there is a presumption behind this list of attributes that is necessary to guarantee protection under this bill. Can the minister understand what I'm getting to? The minister herself was the one who referred back to the main act. It's very clear that this discrimination protection is selective. The question I asked earlier, which hasn't be answered, is: since it's going to be up to the human rights council to decide what is eligible and what is not, what is bona fide and what is reasonable? What is the cost to the system every time a claim is made to that council and is then rejected?
Hon. A. Hagen: I again come back to the importance of all of us understanding that we are dealing with this amendment in the context of the Human Rights Act. I think the member is debating last year's legislation, when we did in fact have amendments relating to the various matters she's discussing around employment equity. It's not discrimination under this act to discriminate on the basis of an employment equity program.
In terms of this particular amendment, it is administered in the context of the act. We are entering into the estimates debate if we're dealing with budgetary issues.
C. Tanner: We've been here until this hour of the night -- 12:15 a.m. -- discussing would you believe, two sections of a bill. This caucus includes two lawyers; the minister, who has two experts, whom I'm assuming are lawyers; and all of these people here who have been discussing these two paragraphs in this bill. Does that not give the minister pause to think that maybe she could have made a mistake and that it could be badly written?
[ Page 7677 ]
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has proven to the minister -- by quoting from text in front of him -- that every other legislature across Canada is different and that nobody else in Canada is saying the same thing as you, Madam Minister. Are you so perfect that you know better than all these people and all these experts? You don't really expect us to believe that. But even if we did, doesn't it give you pause to think that maybe you've made a mistake? Would there be anything wrong with the minister adjourning and letting this rest for a week so we can get some more expert opinion from outside?
Hon. A. Hagen: Through the second reading debate and through our discussions, we have in fact canvassed a good deal of expert opinion. We certainly have canvassed the constitution of our land, which provides us with constitutional protection. No legislation that we pass can abrogate the rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the overriding principles on which the legislation and the interpretation of the legislation are based. We have noted that in days before, we have had that Charter protection. Yes, the protections that the members have espoused are important. They are in this legislation.
What I have not clearly heard from the members opposite is that they join us in our commitment to having, in legislation, protection for the people of British Columbia against discrimination, the intention to discriminate, and hatred and contempt and join us in our commitment to the provision of readily accessible remedies in human rights legislation, as we were requested to consider by people from ethnic and religious groups and multicultural communities.
[12:15]
I do not want to go back into second reading debate. We have had over four hours of debate on these very few lines. They deal with a very fundamental principle that I as minister and we as government are bringing forward to provide a remedy, protection and due process for the equality and dignity of people in British Columbia who are not currently protected by our human rights legislation. That's what this is about, that's what we're debating, that's what we're supporting and that's what we believe we should indeed put into law to join the other parts of our human rights legislation so that it may provide those protections and remedies for people.
I want to emphasize again that the people in British Columbia have celebrated the fact that this legislation has come forward and does provide that protection. Hon. Chair, I've lapsed into some second reading comments here. I believe it is important for us to deal with this debate, this section, this amendment and the protections that are there. We have been assured, through very extensive discussion, that these protections are very solidly there through the clauses in place and through the protections of our Charter, our common law and the jurisprudence of the land. So I stand very strongly and supportively with the people of British Columbia in being proud to bring this legislation forward.
C. Tanner: At the end of the debate on second reading, the minister said virtually the same thing. This side of the House doesn't agree with her, nor do the members of the Socred caucus or the independent members.
Even if you are right, Madam Minister, what reason do you have to push this through at 20 past 12 at night? What difference does it make to you or to the people on that side of the House, who agree with you, if you wait another week or so? We can bring more people in to discuss this. We do not agree with you, Madam Minister. Do you think you exclusively think of those people who have been discriminated against?
The Chair: Order, hon. member. With the greatest respect, I would remind the hon. member that there were a number of motions in second reading that have addressed the matter you're raising now. We are on section 2 of the bill, so would you address your remarks to that.
C. Tanner: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. It appears as if this debate is winding down.
The point I want to make is that there has been a lot of good, solid argument by this side of the House saying that we don't agree with where the minister is. It's too important to be rushed through at this time of night. I think the minister should pause and show the generosity of spirit that says that maybe there is another point of view, and maybe we don't have to pass it tonight. That's all I'm asking for. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm merely asking that she reconsider her position and give other people in the public purview a chance to participate in the debate. I don't see why the minister has any problem with that proposition.
V. Anderson: In second reading debate and in the question-and-answer period this evening -- it's more of a question-and-answer period than a debate in committee -- we have tried to put forth questions to clarify and understand, and the minister has answered as she saw fit. But we have had in second reading and in the questions and answers tonight a far-ranging discussion and expression of the need to find a way to support people who are victims of hate literature and hate expressions of every kind. We stand, I believe, together in that intention. But we divide on the manner in which we bring it about, which is so often the case when we meet.
One of the areas that I wanted to bring in -- had there been a chance to bring it in and think it would have passed -- is an area of discrimination that we have not mentioned. It's probably the most broadly based area of discrimination that affects the largest number, group or class of people within our community. I spent from 10 o'clock this morning until we began this debate this evening on the area of those who are in poverty and are discriminated against in our society in action, in writing and in every other way because of the source of their income or their economic status, whichever way you want to put it. That source of discrimination is far greater than many of the others that we have mentioned. All day long we have demonstrated again
[ Page 7678 ]
and again how people in our society are discriminated against because of their source of income or their economic status. I thank the minister for her intention. I wish we could have come together in agreeing on the process. Unfortunately, we have to agree on intention and disagree on process, but it is very clear that we stand with the minister in wishing that hate literature could be overcome.
C. Serwa: Canada is a very special place. We have people here from all races, ethnic backgrounds, religion and colour, working and playing together in harmony. There is virtually no other jurisdiction in the world with this diversity. Canada is truly the world's first international country.
There is duplicity in the series of amendments. The minister spoke about principles, but no principles are expressed here. The duplicity is that in one section something is called discrimination; in another section of the bill it's not called discrimination, yet it is identical. It's just for the convenience of the minister and the government that they decide they are standing on this solid foundation. In fact, the minister is not doing that.
How can the minister reconcile the duplicity of standards in this particular bill? In the one area in section 2 that we are discussing, there is one set of standards and in employment equity you have another set of standards. You willingly and wilfully discriminate in that section in ways that you charge someone else with discrimination. How can the minister defend this section when you are wilfully engaging in the type of discrimination that you say you are striving to stamp out?
The Chair: The hon. member continues.
C. Serwa: That was a fairly straightforward question that I would have expected the minister should be able to answer. Whether it is intended or not, there is duplicity in the way this section doesn't reconcile itself on the foundation of any set of principles with other sections in the Human Rights Act. How can the minister presume that it doesn't? It's a paradox. It's a contradiction. There is a double standard here. I would like the minister to defend that double standard, because I certainly have difficulty accepting it.
The goal is noble, and I think that we all support the goal. But the manner in which the minister has decided to take this piece of legislation is not going to achieve the goal because of the inherent duplicity in the particular act. I would appreciate it if the minister would endeavour to respond, because I am confident there are people who would like to hear a response to that particular question.
Hon. A. Hagen: I disagree with the member's premise. The amendment we are debating is about equality, and for us that is a very strong principle.
C. Serwa: I have no difficulty with that. But the point I am endeavouring to make is that there is duplicity in the set of standards as a matter of convenience for government. In the same act, you are utilizing entirely different principles -- entirely different value systems. How can the minister reconcile -- in the one bill on the Human Rights Act -- different sets of principles as a matter of convenience? In one situation someone who engages in it is charged with discrimination; in the other section the government can wilfully engage in discrimination. There's duplicity here, and the minister has not given me my answer.
The Chair: I would point out to the hon. member that his point has been well taken. The Chair would like to have the member address further matters following the minister's response.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Chair -- and you are indeed an hon. Chair in seeking to have us deal with the substance of the amendment within principles.
I would like to advise the member for Okanagan West that the Charter itself deals with the rightness of amelioration, with the objective of helping disadvantaged groups to achieve a greater equality in our society. Human rights legislation broadly deals with that objective as well. That doesn't particularly have anything to do with the particular clause, but I recognize that the member is dealing more broadly. I strongly disagree with your premise, and I wanted to bring in, again, the Charter and the kinds of goals it sets for us as a Canadian society. We are strongly in support of those broad objectives, and our human rights legislation -- both in this amendment and in other ways -- deals with that.
But, Hon. Chair, I agree with you: we should be dealing very specifically with the amendment.
C. Tanner: I just want to make one last plea to the minister. Can we pass this out of committee but not have third reading tonight, so that we can have third reading sometime in the future and allow the members of the House who feel so strongly on this side -- equally strongly as the members on that side -- to speak to third reading?
[12.30]
Section 2 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 26 | ||
|
Marzari |
Edward |
Charbonneau |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Hagen |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Zirnhelt |
B. Jones |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Randall |
|
Garden |
Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 9 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Wilson |
|
Serwa |
Neufeld |
Tanner |
|
Warnke |
Anderson |
Tyabji |
[ Page 7679 ]
Title approved.
Hon. A. Hagen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 33, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. A. Hagen: Now, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The motion before you is third reading of Bill 33. All those in favour? All those opposed? In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some Hon. Members: Division.
The Speaker: A division has been called.
Hon. G. Clark: I rise, hon. Speaker, to discuss with the members of the House across the way that we waive the time limits for the purposes of this vote.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Interjections.
The Speaker: The Chair has heard a no.
Bill 33, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 26 | ||
|
Marzari |
Edwards |
Charbonneau |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Hagen |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Zirnhelt |
B. Jones |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Randall |
|
Garden |
Janssen | |
|
NAYS -- 9 | ||
|
Serwa |
Neufeld |
Wilson |
|
Dalton |
Chisholm |
Tyabji |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Tanner |
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:55 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to respond to a couple of questions posed by the member last night. But before I do so, I'd like to correct an error I made -- seldom as it is that we in this ministry make an error. We do acknowledge it when we do. I responded that the postings for the communications regional people were advertised in the papers, and I've been informed that that is not correct. They were posted at external postings, so they were posted widely, but they were not advertised in the papers.
Now I'd like to respond to a couple of questions posed yesterday by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale about the savings identified by the ministry during the last fiscal year. There were three requests by Treasury Board for ministries to identify savings in the '92-93 fiscal year to respond to expenditure pressures -- like the reduction in federal funding and increasing costs in health and social services. I am proud to say, as I said yesterday, that we did tighten our belts three specific times.
We identified $3.3 million in expenditures that could be deferred or eliminated entirely. Whenever budgets are cut there is some suffering. It might be in staff training, managers' travel out to the regions, delay in the purchase of new equipment, improvements to the working conditions of staff, or even supplying pins and flags to members. Of the $3.3 million in savings, $1.364 million was permanent, and $1.938 million was deferred. The money was not spent last year, but was not eliminated for the l993-94 budget. Those were for items necessary for the ministry's operations but that could be deferred for a few months.
These items were eliminated entirely: special events from the Expo 92 budget, $545,000; Maritime Bicentennial, $300,000; Airshow program, $63,000; salary savings, $109,000; pins and flags, $160,000; and general items -- expenditure reductions in travel, asset acquisitions, contracting, office expenses -- were $187,000. Those things required by the ministry that were deferred but will be done later on are: information and privacy, $227,000; recruitment lag, $516,000;
[ Page 7680 ]
advertising and re-education costs at GCO, $500,000; and reduction in discretionary funding for travel, contracting and acquisition of office expenditures, $700,000.
I would also like to draw to the member's attention the moneys that were transferred to GCO from other ministries. We stated that there was $2.265 million there. These dollars are actually shown in the expenditures at the back of the estimates book. If you go through them, it does show, for example, that the Attorney General's ministry transferred $180,000 to Government Services for the government communications office. If the member went through there, he would find each and every one of the transfers from each and every ministry. We have developed a list, and I will make that list available to the member to save him the time. I hope he recognizes that my staff did this, even though the information is there for him in the book.
K. Jones: Thank you to the minister for providing that information. With regard to that material you're referring to in the estimates book, we were asking how many positions were moved from one side to the other. That is why we wanted that clarification. I don't think that is actually in the book -- is that correct?
[3:00]
Hon. L. Boone: No positions were transferred.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the funding was transferred, but the positions remained in the various ministries?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer questions on the other ministries. I know that their funding was transferred to this ministry to provide the services I spoke about with regard to regional communications, but I have no idea how the other ministries coped with the reduction in their funding.
K. Jones: That would mean, though, that you then had to hire new people to fill those positions in order to do the work that was done by them in the past. That is why you have the extra budget from them.
Hon. L. Boone: I already stated that we were hiring for regional positions. We went through that situation.
K. Jones: But there were people who weren't regional people doing communications work in the various ministries. They were actually working in the ministries and looking after the ministries' interests. Who is doing that work now? Is the GCO looking after that function, or was it found to be unnecessary in the ministries? For instance, have you done that with your own ministry?
The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair, please.
Hon. L. Boone: We have two people in our ministry. I forget what the percentage was. Was it 1 percent we were all asked to give? Was it 2 percent or something like that? Four percent. We transferred those dollars. That did not come from more staff, though. It came from our general advertising budget. As for the other ministers, you are going to have to ask them how they dealt with their budgets. I'm not sure how they dealt with them.
K. Jones: I'll take a few moments now just to allow the minister to perhaps.... Since we are only going to 4:30 today, I'm sure some of the staff could go back to their regular duties. I didn't mean to keep them here. Not knowing what was on the program both yesterday and today, I really didn't know how long it was going to take to go through the various stages. I think, basically, we'll be touching today on government communications, policy coordination office, the archives and Enquiry B.C. We'll leave the three Crowns and the air services until Thursday. We'll cover some of the other areas today, if that will be of any help to you.
Hon. L. Boone: I appreciate the member giving us the opportunity to allow staff to return to their offices. However, I think the member of the third party has some questions that may be relevant to some of those areas, and perhaps we should give him an opportunity to ask some of those questions before they depart.
H. De Jong: Well, just to make everything easier, hon. Chair, I'm quite prepared to research the areas that were mentioned by the Liberal critic for questioning on Thursday and leave those until Thursday as well.
K. Jones: Thank you for coming.
I'd like to start in the policy coordination office and look at one of the issues here. In a letter to the editor of Monday magazine last February, Sheila Fruman, the director of strategic planning in the policy coordination office, stated that approximately $1.3 million was spent on opinion research for the period ending March 31, 1991. She also stated that the government will spend less than that in 1992. Can the minister tell taxpayers how much money was spent on polling or opinion research?
Hon. L. Boone: Policy coordination branch doesn't actually spend any money on polling. They coordinate polling for the other ministries, but they do not generate polls, and so they do not spend any money themselves.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister, then, could tell us what the $1.3 million that the director referred to as opinion research was spent on.
Hon. L. Boone: That would be an estimate of the dollars that are spent across government, but it's not dollars that are spent through this ministry.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us for what purpose, though? What is opinion research?
[ Page 7681 ]
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we merely coordinate polls that are requested from other ministries. It's not generated from here. We simply act on behalf of other ministries.
K. Jones: Since this is the only place where questions can be asked with regard to the policy coordination office estimates, I would ask the minister to clarify her answer to our question. She's got to be accountable for the work that's done in this office, therefore she must know what they're doing. Although many of the things in her office relate to providing services to other ministries, the minister is still responsible for them.
Hon. L. Boone: It would be nice to think that I was responsible for all those things, but I assure you that I'm not responsible for what takes place in other ministries. We coordinate. There are no moneys at all in this ministry for polling.
K. Jones: Ms. Fruman also stated that the government subscribes to quarterly reports such as those of Angus Reid, Decima, Marktrend, Viewpoints and Environics. Will the minister give us the benefit of her knowledge of these and make them available to us?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure what you want shared. I do know, for example, that we save the government considerable money. Many of these reports used to be commissioned by every ministry. By coordinating our efforts we have one set of those reports coming into government instead of going to all ministries. But these are reports that are purchased reports. From what I gather, they come off the shelf. I'm not sure what it is you want; these are publications that are available to anybody.
K. Jones: That's good to know. I would ask the minister to make them available to the opposition parties as well, since it would be just an extra copy. As the minister says, they are made available for other parts of the government.
Hon. L. Boone: These are subscriptions that we have. I suggest that the opposition parties subscribe to them just as government does. I don't think it's the policy coordination office's responsibility to provide subscriptions to either the government or opposition offices.
K. Jones: The minister stated that the subscriptions to these various reports are obtained by the policy coordination office -- as Ms. Fruman said -- and are distributed to various parts of the government. The information is made available. Are these then.... The minister shakes her head no. Maybe she could clarify what she means by that. Is the information made available, or is it on a library basis with the policy coordination office?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: They are distributed to ministries. I've been advised that they couldn't be distributed widely because of the copyright provisions. They contain questions that are not widely asked and are very expensive documents to get. We would be in contravention of the copyright laws if we were to do so.
K. Jones: Since the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying for these, would it not be appropriate that they be made available in the public library for all members of the Legislature, so there wouldn't be additional costs to the taxpayers for the opposition to have to buy their own subscriptions to them?
Hon. L. Boone: We pay a handsome price, I am told, for these publications. They come to us, as the client -- the government of British Columbia. If we were to make them available to the public, then they would be devalued and we would be in contravention of the copyright.
K. Jones: I presume that the minister is talking about small-g government, rather than large-G government, because she does distribute them to other than the members of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Therefore they must be available to the government, which is all of this legislative precinct. It would be appropriate -- even if it's restricted to the members of the legislature -- to have them in the library and available to all members, thereby not creating an additional expense out of budgets provided by the taxpayers for the official opposition and the third party.
Hon. L. Boone: It is provided to the executive arm of government. Government caucus does not obtain these, and therefore they will not be made available to anybody else. I would think that as a protector of the private enterprise system, you would be out there protecting the rights of these individuals to make money off these publications. I would expect that you would not want to see us devalue these individuals' rights, because that is in fact what we would be doing if we were to be contravening the copyright laws.
K. Jones: It's nice to see the minister championing the rights of copyright and free enterprise, especially in connection with this. If she was true to what she is saying, then this information would not go out to anyone other than the policy coordination office. The government would have to pay for its own copy, because the policy coordination office is a separate entity, and each separate entity within the government -- each ministry, segment of ministry and Crown corporation -- would fall into her same description. Hon. minister, I am saying to you during estimates -- when government expenses are so great, when the public is so upset with the amount of this government's deficit financing and when there is a real need to cut costs -- that to provide the best use of these documents, they should be made available to all members of this Legislature. These are working documents that are of benefit to the members of the Legislature. The people of British Columbia demand that you provide that
[ Page 7682 ]
low-cost service if you are going to take that expense as an item of government to start with. If you don't feel that it is good for the opposition members to know about it, then it's probably not good for the members of government to know about it, either. What exclusive benefit do you think that the government, rather than the opposition, needs to get out of it?
[3:15]
Hon. L. Boone: The exclusive benefit is that government ministries have shared in the cost of this subscription. The policy coordination office, as I stated earlier, coordinates cross-government initiatives. This is one of the initiatives they have coordinated. They have saved a considerable amount by coordinating the dollars that are spent here. Rather than having each and every ministry purchasing this, we are purchasing one. It is government policy, and even for you, hon. member, I will not break the copyright laws and put this government in a position of being sued by a company for breaking those copyright laws, nor will I jeopardize the business of a company out there by putting that information in a library that is in the public domain, and thereby devaluing the information that is available to them. That is my final answer here. You may not accept it or you may not like it, but that is the final answer.
K. Jones: I guess we will have to carry on with the inquiries from these agencies as to whether their copyrights are being infringed by the government in its present usage of their information. From what the minister has stated, she seems to think that the present use is okay, but that to extend that service to other representatives of the people of British Columbia is not okay: they should pay extra and utilize the public taxpayers' hard-earned money to pay for additional information. I will therefore take up that issue further with the various opinion surveyors and see what they think of what she is saying.
Ms. Fruman further states that public opinion on the Premier's and government's performance is included in many of these reports by Angus Reid, Decima, Mark-trend, Viewpoints and Environics. Will the minister make that information available to us?
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: I am trying to get to the bottom of this information. If you are asking for information that is contained in the reports that we obtained, I have already stated we will not be making that information public, because it is copyrighted material. If you are asking for the information that may be obtained in any of the polls taken through other ministries, and if you want to make a request through the various ministries, then they would be happy to take that back and look into it.
K. Jones: The public opinion of the Premier and the government's performance isn't a deep, dark secret, is it? Is the government embarrassed about the reports? It certainly sounds like it. The minister is not prepared to bring forward the information. Could the minister paraphrase the information, so we know about that?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll go through this once more. If the information is in the reports that we get -- that are publications, subscriptions -- we are not breaking the copyright on that. It doesn't matter what it says in there; it's no deep, dark secret. You can get the same information by subscribing to those publications. If you request the information through the other polls that are taken by the other ministries, do so. As I've stated, we do not put out polls. We do not do polling from PCO. If you would like the results of a poll that was done on a particular issue, then please request that information through the various ministries. I can't respond on behalf of other ministers.
K. Jones: The PCO does opinion research. I'm asking the minister to give us -- in a paraphrased manner -- the public opinion of the Premier and the government's performance, as known by that agency. What have they acquired in opinion research? The minister cannot stand behind a false veil of copyright to try and hide the information from the public.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm trying to be as patient as I can on these things. If you want the information from the various ministries, we coordinate the information from them. Please make that request to the various ministries for the polling results of whatever it is. I do not have that information. I cannot paraphrase something that I have no knowledge of, hon. member. If you want me to paraphrase it, I would say to you that yes, I think the Premier is doing a wonderful job representing the people of B.C. We are keeping costs down, and we are making tough budget decisions under tough economic times. Is that what you want to hear me say? I cannot answer your question at this particular time.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister should actually say that she cannot in all honesty make those statements.
The Chair: I think that the minister is attempting to answer the questions as put forward. If you have some specific questions about information, I suggest you address them through the Chair, but certainly one shouldn't impute any motives or any other senses to the minister's answers. Please continue.
K. Jones: The minister is trying very hard to hide information that should be available to this committee, and therefore....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon member. I've asked you not to impugn the minister's answer or herself. She answered the question; she's not attempting to hide, as you suggest. At least, she doesn't come into this chamber to do that, and you shouldn't impugn that. I suggest you just continue in a line of questioning which does not impugn the minister's reputation or answers.
[ Page 7683 ]
K. Jones: This opinion research information -- has it been communicated in any manner to officials within the New Democratic Party?
Hon. L. Boone: Any of the polling information that government receives is distributed within government and is for government use only.
K. Jones: Is there someone within the policy coordination office or government communications who is responsible for liaising with the New Democratic Party, as was done with the Social Credit Party?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: I'd like to go to the area of the archives. The provincial archivist's role within government will greatly expand with the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. I understand the archives have three staff members on the freedom-of-information implementation team. How much money is being spent on upgrading and training these individuals, and on implementing the FOI?
Hon. L. Boone: There is $140,000 for the FOI coordination base funding and $138,000 for records management, so that's a total of $278,000 made available for the archives. Training and any number of different things come out of that figure.
K. Jones: Does the minister feel that this staffing level will adequately address the impact that the implementation could have on the provincial archives? To be specific, is there some contingency fund that could be drawn on by the archive staff if, after implementation is determined, the public demand is greater than the resources available to the archives?
Hon. L. Boone: We are looking at everything and are trying to be as frugal as we can during these tough economic times. We think we can accomplish our goals within the moneys that we have allocated, and it would be very negative of me to think that we were not going to assume that. So we are working towards meeting our goals within the budgets that we have.
K. Jones: Does the minister feel that the protective measures being taken by the archives staff to protect documents and records are adequate to protect the cultural and heritage aspects of our provincial records?
Hon. L. Boone: We could always use more -- everybody can always use more. But I would like to remind the member that last night he indicated that we could probably cut a lot more money in this ministry. So we're making do with the dollars that we have; we're doing the best we can. Of course, we could always use a lot more money to preserve, but we're doing an admirable job of preserving the documents we have, and of making sure that our history is there for many generations to come.
K. Jones: I don't recall mentioning anything about money in this question. It had to do with whether the minister felt that the measures being taken by the archive staff to protect documents and records are adequate to protect the cultural and heritage aspects of our provincial records.
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated, yes, we are doing whatever we can. Certainly all of the measures that are being taken.... If we are going to do anything more, it will take more money, and that is the matter of it. We can always use more money, we can use more staff, we can use more time, we can use more everything. We will make do with what we have, because we are in a tough economic situation, and that is the reality that we are living under.
K. Jones: The auditor general expressed some concerns about the ability to get the backlog caught up. What is the minister doing to resolve that?
[3:30]
Hon. L. Boone: Since the auditor general's report, we have been able to implement ARIS, an automated record information system -- is that correct? An archives and records information system -- excuse me, I'm not very good on initials. The ARIS system will enable us to get a better handle on the backlog. We are working on it. We estimate that we will have the backlog dealt with in five to seven years. As you know, John Bovey is a man whose word can be trusted, and he will do what he can to make sure that the archive backlog is addressed within that period of time.
K. Jones: I have no doubt that Mr. Bovey will try his utmost to get all of the work done. He is a fantastic asset to the province. It will depend solely on the minister's ability to get the funding, and to provide him with the facilities and support materials to do his job. I think that is where the problem will come in.
Has the disaster plan which is being developed by the provincial archives been completed or is it still ongoing?
Hon. L. Boone: The disaster plan has been completed, but it is subject to constant revision.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of what that disaster plan includes?
Hon. L. Boone: The archives building has been upgraded with water and fire alert systems. Every action has been taken to ensure the protection of archival records. With respect to off-site storage, two of the three contracted buildings are state of the art, while a third does meet standards established. The 865 Yates Street site was tested prior to occupancy for earthquake preparedness. The 655 Belleville Street site was built to contemporary specifications, and BCBC is currently completing a windows upgrade there.
K. Jones: There is a bit of interesting paraphrasing with regard to the Belleville site. I believe the minister
[ Page 7684 ]
said that it was built to contemporary requirements. I understand that contemporary requirements no longer adequately meet the earthquake protection requirements of today, and that there is a need to upgrade that facility to bring it up to today's earthquake standards. Could the minister tell us what plans have been put in place to do that, and what the cost will be?
Hon. L. Boone: We have asked BCBC to look for another site to consolidate our two sites. That is currently in process.
K. Jones: Could that site possibly be the Y lot? Is that one of the sites being considered?
Hon. L. Boone: If I knew what it was, I wouldn't be asking them to look for it.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly how many square feet BCBC is looking for in appropriate facilities? What kinds of standards are in the criteria that she's instructed BCBC to provide?
Hon. L. Boone: If you're really interested in this, it would be all the office sites and off-site storage that is currently there. I don't know the square footage, but if you are really interested in the square footage that BCBC is looking for, we can get that information to you. Obviously they would be looking for the standards that we talked about with regard to earthquake-proofing, waterproofing and the various things that are there.
K. Jones: What I heard the minister say, though, is that she has given instructions to BCBC to look for sites that would accommodate the existing requirements of the archives. That would mean that she has made no provisions for the future growth of archival requirements. Is the minister really not looking to the future and therefore not including any growth requirements? Yes, we certainly are interested in this. This is like any other major facility and is probably even more important than most government facilities, in that the prizes, historical records, documents and artwork of British Columbia are stored in these facilities. At present I think there's a real need to look for far better facilities, and it should be done immediately. When is this report going to come back to the minister?
Hon. L. Boone: I have not asked for a report; I've asked them to search out a site. The site obviously would take in the requirements of all the archival records and take into consideration any expansion there. We need consolidation, but we need to find the proper space, which is not easy to find, given the needs of archival records. It's a very important function that we can't just shuffle off into any building, so BCBC is currently looking for the space. When they find something adequate, obviously they will come to us. But I am not asking for a report from them.
K. Jones: It's unfortunate that the minister doesn't have good knowledge in this area, so that she would know that these buildings are designed specifically for that purpose. You're not going to just find them floating around somewhere, waiting for a tenant to occupy them. This type of facility is specialized and custom-built for a particular need, and this should be included in her planning process. Do you have this in your five-year plan, three-year plan or whatever plan that you're working with, as far as capital planning is concerned? First of all, maybe you could answer this: is there a capital plan by the ministry?
D. Schreck: Point of order. Hon. Chair, what is in order are matters affecting this fiscal year's expenditures under the jurisdiction of the minister. Questions that anticipate future policy are out of order, both in this committee and in the House.
The Chair: I would ask the hon. member to direct his questions to the expenditures of the ministry in this fiscal year.
K. Jones: If the member had been in business, he would know that future planning is done in the fiscal year of every business. He would know that that is appropriate within the financial process of that organization. I'm sure that the government operates similarly. Therefore, I would expect the minister to have an answer to the question as to whether there is a planning process in place and what type of planning process it is.
Hon. L. Boone: We have a space plan for the ministry. A new space for the archives is one of the priorities, as is moving some of our spaces around. If you have been to superannuation, I think you would understand some of the needs that our staff in the ministries have in dealing with this. We do have a space plan; we have been dealing with it in the past year. As I said, the new archives is a priority with us.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate how much money is in her planning for this process? How much in this year's budget is for the planning portion of this new space-needs allocation?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC does planning; it's not done by the ministry.
K. Jones: I'm most surprised and perplexed by the response. BCBC is a building contracting organization. The ministry has to plan what it needs to tell BCBC what to build. They can't do the job for them, because they aren't the people who are going to use it. You have to have a group of people who are familiar with the business that's being done to determine what the plan is so that you can hand that over to BCBC. Perhaps the minister misunderstood the question and would like to correct it in light of that information.
Hon. L. Boone: No, I didn't misunderstand. The answer is that we do not do the planning. We tell BCBC what we require; we tell them what we need. BCBC does all of the planning on a governmentwide basis. BCBC owns the buildings or manages them on behalf of
[ Page 7685 ]
government. They do so based on other government priorities. We work in conjunction with BCBC to make these plans. This ministry does not do the planning of a new site.
K. Jones: Having spent a little time in the planning process myself, I have an advantage over the minister in knowing the difference between planning and telling people what's required. In most cases, part of telling them what's required is the planning process. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what to tell them. You have to determine that within your ministry; that is definitely a major part of the planning process. The rest of it is just a matter of designing the requirements to meet the requirements. The real planning process is that which goes on in the ministry. How much money is being spent on the process that the minister calls "telling them what we require"?
The Chair: I assume that the minister is stating that her ongoing functions in her ministry determine the requirements, and that she passes on the responsibility to plan for the location of those to BCBC. I'm not sure whether the minister can add any more to that answer. If she wishes to specify an amount that's set aside for planning, then perhaps she will.
K. Jones: I find it perplexing when I hear the Chair interpreting what the minister's trying to say and acting as a protector of the minister's statement. I think the Chair then steps out of his....
The Chair: Hon. member, are you attacking the Chair on that point?
K. Jones: On the contrary, hon. Chair, I'm just providing simple guidance on the Chair's action, which appeared to go beyond the role of the Chair.
The Chair: Hon. member, I heard the minister say twice, in answer to two successive questions, that the planning responsibility was in a Crown corporation -- I just wanted to clarify that for you. I asked the minister to answer the question and if she had more information to give, at which time she indicated she did not. So if it seems to you that I interfered in the process, I invite you to continue your line of questioning. However, if it again gets into an area where she has already expressed a concern, I would assume your questions are redundant and there are no answers; in which case, I would ask you to move on. So please continue your line of questioning.
[3:45]
K. Jones: I'm not trying to be redundant. I just want to get a simple answer to the question I asked originally, and that's why we're having the difficulty. That question is: how much money is allocated to the process, that gets you to the point where you could tell BCBC how much space you require for the coming years?
Hon. L. Boone: There is nothing in this budget -- nothing. The previous year's information was given to BCBC, but there is nothing in this budget for planning for the archives to move.
K. Jones: That's the kind of answer I find forthright and easy to understand. If that could have been stated at the beginning, we probably wouldn't have gone through this process.
In conversations I've had with members of the provincial archives, the issue of staffing levels arose -- I posed it to them; in particular, the need to increase the number of conservationists. As you well know, the issue of government staffing is a tough one for all governments. Has the provincial archives staffing changed since the change of government?
Hon. L. Boone: The staffing level in the conservation lab is the same.
K. Jones: Has the minister taken a look at the workload there, and at the amount of backlog that has been identified in the auditor general's report, to see what needs to be done to rectify some of the problems they have?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I have.
K. Jones: Could the minister enlighten us on her observations and the conclusions she reached?
Hon. L. Boone: As I've stated earlier, we acknowledge that we could use all the help we can get, and that's true of archives across the country. They all have backlogs and material that is deteriorating. We are doing what we can within the fiscal responsibilities and the framework that we have to manage our dollars well and to save those that we can.
One alternative we are examining is microfilming information, where appropriate, rather than conserving the original document. We are doing whatever we can to make sure that our history is preserved -- and, as you know, hon. member, there is not an endless amount of money out there. We could put a lot of money into the archives, and we could do things a lot faster probably, but we do not have the dollars there to do so.
K. Jones: Digital storage is growing in usage today. What provisions has the minister provided to the archives in order to facilitate the current large amount of digital storage and the future growth that will occur in digital storage.
The Chair: Hon. minister, I ask you to address your comments to the member through the Chair, please.
Hon. L. Boone: The backlog you are talking about hasn't occurred yet; it hasn't gotten to the archives, hon. member through the Chair. It will be coming, and John Bovey is doing whatever he can to make sure that archives is prepared and we've got the necessary storage space for it. We recognize that ministries will be
[ Page 7686 ]
passing information over to archives. It hasn't come to us yet, but we are preparing for it.
K. Jones: What method do you have for transferring and storing it?
Hon. L. Boone: It will be transferred through the Public Accounts Committee -- the usual process that goes through there.
K. Jones: I wasn't asking a procedural question; it was a technical question. What equipment are you going to use to transfer the facility? Are you going to move the disk from one machine to another, or will the information be sent over a series of data lines that will be provided to the archives? How are you going to store that material when you receive it?
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, we are working on this. We have not come up with the answer at this time. There are a number of alternatives that we might use, but Mr. Bovey is looking through them, and perhaps by next year we will have some answers for you on this. At this particular time, I can't tell you how that will be transferred.
K. Jones: We are working with the 1993-94 budget. We have to know what we are going to do during 1993-94, because this is occurring right now. The minister has to make preparations for that. She can't just wait until next year to see what will happen. What provision has the minister made in her budget today to accommodate that equipment?
Hon. L. Boone: We don't expect any digital records to come in this year. We are working on it this year to find out how we will be accommodating those, and I can assure the member that when it comes time for us to accept those records, we will be well able to accommodate them. But I can't tell you right now. We are merely researching, looking and finding the best way to do it.
K. Jones: That means that under the implementation of freedom-of-information and privacy legislation coming up in the fall, each ministry is going to be accessing those data files to the public. How are those files going to be protected if they are not in the archives? Are you going to expect each ministry to look after the protection of those files while they are making copies to issue to the public?
Hon. L. Boone: Ministries are responsible for all of their records, and for the privacy aspect of the information as well. I can assure the member that copies will not be made of information that is not relevant or that is personal information. Copies and information that is given out will be scrutinized very carefully to take into consideration the privacy aspects of the information and privacy act. That is one of the things the ministries are being trained to do right now. That is some of the stuff that's going on with regard to the manuals that are being made, so that people will know what information can or can't be released.
K. Jones: An interesting fact about digital files is that you can put them up on the screen, and you can make modifications to the original file and thereby give a printout of the particular thing that the person wants. A lot of people might be inclined to take that original file and make some blankouts on it, to blank out the privacy portions, or what they consider to be private portions, and by some mistake make that a permanent record. What protection and set of instructions in handling digital files has the minister put out to protect the original documents so that they will be available for the archives and not lost through the process of handling?
Hon. L. Boone: It is the responsibility of the archives and the minister responsible for the archives to make sure that archival material, once it reaches the archives, is maintained. It's not our responsibility to police all the ministries to make sure that the material they give to the archives is the same material that was originally on their computers. That is the ministry's responsibility; it has nothing to do with the archives.
K. Jones: I just want to remind the minister that she's also taken on the responsibility of the implementation of freedom of information and privacy, and is therefore responsible for providing instructions to the various ministries to protect all of these documents. The question was connecting those two, but it was still solely under the minister's responsibilities. Let's not focus on just one aspect of a ministry, when they're still within the minister's responsibility.
Hon. L. Boone: The document disposal information requires that those records be maintained -- the paper ones the same as a digital one on a screen. But it's not up to us to police those and to make sure that information is there.
K. Jones: The digital files are very vital. The minister has the responsibility, under the freedom-of-information implementation, to provide instructions to all the ministry users -- or all users of records -- in order that those files may be properly protected so that they will reach the archives in their original form. Have those instructions been given, and in what form are they given, with regard to digital files?
Hon. L. Boone: The ministry records officers in each of the ministries are well aware of the Document Disposal Act and what is required of them. The freedom-of-information office in my administration makes sure that the administration and implementation of freedom of information takes place, and provides a manual and training for people to tell them how to interpret the act and how to make information available. The Document Disposal Act deals with maintaining, keeping and disposing of records. Just as a record can be disposed of on a computer, a record can easily be disposed of through a shredder as well. Each
[ Page 7687 ]
of those is equally bad, and the people in the ministries know that they have to maintain the integrity of those files. There's no more problem with a digital file than there is with another file suddenly disappearing.
[4:00]
H. De Jong: It's been a rather interesting discussion. It would appear that we're mixing three things together, and we're trying to find an answer. The minister and the critic are trying to find answers to a combination of things. We first talked about the archives, space requirements, and about microfilming some of these articles within the archives, which of course is going to put forward a whole different view in terms of space needs and different kinds of space.
Then we get into freedom of information. It is my understanding, hon. Chair -- unless you want to correct me -- that the Freedom of Information Act was brought in by the Ministry of Attorney General, and it is my understanding that there are in fact specific guidelines given through the Ministry of Attorney General for what is, in effect, available under the Freedom of Information Act. It is also my understanding that there are a number of people specifically trained in that aspect as well. I can hardly see where the people who are the gatekeepers of the archives would have jurisdiction over what is being presented to the public, unless I am totally wrong in my understanding of how things work. I would like to have the minister comment on that.
Hon. L. Boone: I would be happy to clarify some of this information for you. You are correct. The act was brought in under the Ministry of Attorney General. The implementation of the act, however, comes under my jurisdiction. The people who are doing the training and implementation -- the freedom-of-information staff -- are under my ministry's jurisdiction. They are responsible for making sure that all ministries have the necessary staff trained and the necessary records management in place within their ministries. We do not go into ministries and work; we work with their staff to make sure that their staff are trained.
Our ministry staff are also producing a manual which clearly outlines -- as you state -- what can and cannot be given. The responsibility of the archives is to make sure those archival records, once they come through Public Accounts to be put into the archives, are stored and maintained for future generations' use. They do not have any jurisdiction over what takes place in freedom of information. So you are correct, there is a distinction. I have no idea how we got into these muddy waters, but we did.
H. De Jong: I certainly appreciate the minister's answer, because I think it clarifies a whole lot of what we have been talking about for the last three-quarters of an hour.
I would like to have a further explanation from the minister as it pertains to the archives versus that of current information. I understand that current information, as the hon. minister explained, would be disseminated by the individual ministries. But once it becomes a part of the archival collection, you might say, it then is strictly up to your ministry as to whether this material can be made available to the public. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you are correct. It will be my ministry's responsibility with regard to the archival records. Once everything is in place and the legislation is proclaimed in October we will then -- or sometime in the near future, we hope -- have in place a commissioner who will make the ultimate decision as to what will be released. If there's a discrepancy with a decision made at a ministry level, or even at the archival level, as to what information can be released, then the commissioner would make the final decision. We are doing the cross-government training to make sure that all ministries are ready, come October, to implement freedom of information within their ministries.
H. De Jong: My final question on this subject is: has this in fact required additional staff? Or has the current staff been trained, or will they be, to accommodate that freedom-of-information subject?
Hon. L. Boone: We have extra staff who have been assigned to do freedom of information only. Five additional staff in the archives are dedicated entirely to making the archives prepared for freedom of information. We feel we can achieve that with the staffing levels that we have.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a look at what the computer imaging concept is going to bring to the archival process?
Hon. L. Boone: That's a very exciting concept. I encourage any member here, or anybody within these precincts, to go down to the archives and look at what is taking place with regard to computer imaging. It's a pilot project working in conjunction with UVic. Historical pictures are put into the computer and can be drawn up on a computer screen at UVic. So a student who is doing some research there does not have to go down to the archives to actually see the picture or any of those things. They can actually stay at UVic.
What's even more exciting is that this process is going to be extended to the rest of the province. Everybody else really has been denied access to archives. If you are a student in a college in the interior, it's very difficult to get archival records or have access to look at those things. Those images will be available throughout British Columbia. I think it is an exciting concept, and one that is going to add to our heritage in this province.
K. Jones: I am thrilled with the concept of the imaging process as well. I think that it will open up a lot of opportunity to access the records -- particularly the photos, but I am sure that it can also be used for other records. I understand that it requires very expensive Sun computer screens and computers. Can the minister tell us in what part of the archives budget she has allowed for these units and for the extension? She says
[ Page 7688 ]
they will be available throughout the province. Is this going to be available at every community college or at every government office? Where is it going to be available in the province?
Hon. L. Boone: This is a pilot project; it hasn't been extended.
I think the information that you have is wrong. The computers were provided by UVic. In my discussion with them, I find that it is not really a costly item, and it is not going to be a tremendous cost to colleges or universities throughout the province to hook up to it.
Once the project goes beyond its pilot stage, the moneys will not come from this ministry or from the archives. It will be up to the individual institutions out there to hook up to the system. From my understanding, the cost is very minimal, especially for the value that you get.
The Chair: For the benefit of all members, the Chair has difficulty with the use of "you" and "your." If one is addressing an issue and using "you" to address another member, one is therefore not going through the Chair. All are guilty. I only throw that out as a cautionary note so that we can keep the dialogue flowing through the Chair.
K. Jones: I stand corrected, if that's the case. It certainly wasn't intended. We try to keep that in mind when we are asking questions. Sometimes we become a little more personal in phrasing them. I apologize, and I'm sure the minister experiences that too. Most people in the House seem to do that.
With regard to the minister's statement, she said that some aspect of what I said was not correct. Could she elaborate on which aspect she was talking about?
Hon. L. Boone: The costs.
K. Jones: Is she suggesting that this type of imaging could be done on an ordinary desktop PC, or that it doesn't require the very specialized Sun machines?
Hon. L. Boone: No, the imaging equipment is very expensive, but the imaging would be done through archives. That equipment would be receiving the information. It is my understanding that it is not costly equipment, and that it could be done through any college or university in the province that is on the Internet system. So it will be a minimal cost for colleges or universities to hook up to that system, hon. Chair, and the imaging that would take place on that equipment would stay at the archives. That equipment has been donated by the University of Victoria.
K. Jones: The minister talks about transmitting it over any of the facilities of Internet. Could the minister tell us what band width would be required for this particular type of imaging? This imaging is much more detailed than standard video imaging.
Hon. L. Boone: No, I can't. This questioning is much too detailed for this minister to deal with. I am not an expert in computers or in transmission of those things. This is a pilot project. It's an exciting one that we should be really looking forward to expanding. But if you're getting into the details of the types of computers and processes that are involved, that's far beyond my capacity here.
K. Jones: Knowing that information is really going to determine the costs that are going to be required. I know this is a pilot project. But the minister is very enthusiastic about expanding it throughout the province. To expand it through the province, it's going to cost money. I take it that she has no intention of expanding it through this year's budget, and will probably have difficulty selling it to Treasury Board in next year's budget when you look at the real costs that she is talking about. She may want to narrow down the scope of it and scale it in over several years, because I think she would have a hard time justifying a provincewide network of facilities at the present time.
Hon. L. Boone: I thought that the hon. member understood that we would not be putting this information out. It would be up to the various people out there -- the colleges, the universities, etc. -- if they were interested in hooking up to this. But expanding this to every other area would not be something that would be in my budget. I am not in the post-secondary business of expanding information, and it would be up to the universities and colleges to make sure that they had that within their budgets. As I stated, it is my indication that this is not a very costly item. I'm sure, if it was made available to them, that most colleges and institutions would find that it would probably be very valuable to them.
K. Jones: I hope that this is a success. I think there is great potential, but I think we have to be realistic about the overall costs and bring them into a planned process. I'm sure that the staff of the archives and the coordination people of the various community colleges and universities around the province will be happy to have this access.
[4:15]
I would like to turn over the questioning now to my colleague from Chilliwack -- from Abbotsford, rather. Matsqui?
H. De Jong: I have good friends in Chilliwack, I represent Abbotsford and I live in Matsqui, so you get all three.
Regarding the computer imaging project, I am wondering whether the minister would consider -- while we can talk here for hours about exactly how this works and still not understand it -- whether there would be an opportunity to have a visit with a staff member who is familiar with this, so that we can view this project. As I am also a critic for the Ministry of Advanced Education, I can see great benefits in this program if indeed colleges throughout British Columbia could tap into this and make it available to many of the students, who perhaps never have the opportunity to come to Victoria and see what's on this
[ Page 7689 ]
computer imaging program. So I'm just wondering whether the minister would accommodate that.
Hon. L. Boone: I'd be more than happy to accommodate you. I am sure Mr. Bovey would be absolutely delighted to show any member of the government, the opposition or the third party, or any staffer, anything on this, because it's an exciting concept. Those who are working in the archives find it very exciting as well, so certainly make contact with Mr. Bovey.
K. Jones: I'd just like to point out that our official opposition leader and I had the opportunity this week to have a very fine demonstration in regard to this, so we are at a bit of an advantage in relation to the third party. But the extension of an invitation was made to all of us to make appointments with Mr. Bovey to see this. I think he is very proud of the work that's been done there by his staff.
H. De Jong: To be honest, I am a little bit in a quandary here this afternoon. I understood earlier that we would rise at 4:30 p.m. for whatever reason, and that we would continue the estimates on another day. At that time I said that I would go along with releasing some of the staff from the premises here, because I had specific questions on those particular areas that were to be left until Thursday. I really have no burning questions on the other issues, so I would, hon. Chair, feel very uncomfortable just asking an hour of questions here. First of all, I am not necessarily comfortable asking them to begin with; and secondly, we are just burning time off the clock -- which is very precious time. I recall a teacher, when I was in grade 5, who had two sayings on the wall in front of the school class. One of them said, "Idleness is the devil's pillow," which I thought was a very good statement, because you get into all kinds of trouble being idle -- or you can, at least. The other one was: "Time is money."
In light of that, I prefer that we keep to our original setup: to adjourn these debates with the Minister of Government Services at 4:30 as we had earlier agreed, and continue with the other issues that are still outstanding in regards to the corporations and the air fleet on Thursday morning or afternoon, whenever they're going to be handled.
K. Jones: Actually, I was of the impression that the hon. member wanted to ask some questions, so I was giving him the floor to do so. I'm quite prepared to go until 4:30 as planned. Thank you very much to the deputy House Leader in trying to accommodate things here.
I'd like to leave the archives at this point and go into Enquiry B.C.
The Chair: Continue, hon. member.
K. Jones: I just wanted to make sure the minister had the opportunity, if she needed it, to make some staff changes.
I'd like to ask how many calls were received by Enquiry B.C. during the last year.
Hon. L. Boone: I think I'd have to do some calculating. We receive an average of 35,000 per month; 40,000 were received in March. Just under 400,000 for the year.
K. Jones: How many staff members were employed to service this need?
Hon. L. Boone: The services were contracted to Robertson Rozenhart of Vancouver, which was a contract that we inherited from the previous government. There are approximately 18 full-time-equivalents employed by that company.
K. Jones: Has the minister included in her budget the change of this contract to an in-ministry responsibility, and eliminated the contracting-out of work? I'll leave it at that.
Hon. L. Boone: We have money in this budget to take the contract to the end of this fiscal year; the contract goes to the end of this fiscal year. At that time we will decide what route we will take.
K. Jones: What is the exact mission of the program?
Hon. L. Boone: The mission of the program is one that has been defended very strongly by my staff, I can tell you. It is to make government more accessible to the public. Hon. Chair, you must have members of your riding who try to reach government and who may make five or six calls in trying to find the correct office to deal with a certain problem. Enquiry B.C. was put into place to assist people in finding the right route to government, in a cost-effective manner. Now, instead of making numerous long-distance calls to four or five different people -- only to find that they are not in the right area -- people can make one call to Enquiry B.C., which connects them to the correct government office. It saves them time and it saves the public a lot of money.
K. Jones: Was it intended that the program would provide a free calling service to ministerial offices? Just to clarify that: was it intended that the general public would be able to call through to ministerial offices -- to get free access without having to pay for long-distance calls -- by going through this system?
Hon. L. Boone: They can get through to all government offices. This was actually brought up at LAMC when we were discussing the 1-800 numbers and the need for members to have 1-800 numbers. It was felt at LAMC that there was no need, because people could go through Enquiry B.C. to reach their member or government offices. So it is accessible to everybody.
K. Jones: Was the original intention of the program to have it utilized that way, or is this an additional load that was added on? It seems to have been added on by
[ Page 7690 ]
those people who happen to be in the know. I don't believe it's advertised that this is the appropriate method for people to access their MLAs in order to beat long-distance calling costs.
Hon. L. Boone: It was always there to provide toll-free access by all B.C. residents to government, government members or opposition members. I wasn't around during those original-intent days, but I must say that it was a good intention of the previous government, and I back them all the way on it.
K. Jones: Based on the fact that there are 18 FTEs in this contract and 35,000 calls per month on average, could the minister tell us how many calls per day there would be?
Hon. L. Boone: It depends on the day. Some days things are little more active -- maybe there's a full moon; who knows? -- than other days. It's hard for us to give an average. There are 35,000 calls per month; that's a lot of calls, no matter which way you break it down. That's a lot of access by the public. It's a good job; good service is being provided to the people of British Columbia.
K. Jones: It sounds like there are not a lot of calls per day per operator, and I am wondering how much the program is costing.
Hon. L. Boone: If you want to break it down, there are about 1,500 to 2,000 calls per day. That's a lot of calls, when you're going through.... That's an average of 170 calls per operator.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the cost is?
Hon. L. Boone: The cost of the contract is $1.2 million.
K. Jones: Per annum? That's a pretty good contract. I'm sure the ministry is going to seriously look at the cost of that contract and find ways of reducing the cost to make it more effective. Is that contract done utilizing any government communications facilities, or is it done completely outside?
Hon. L. Boone: We provide the telecommunications facility only. The building and everything else is provided within the contract.
D. Schreck: Before the opposition critic gets into how many telephone lines there are, how they work, whether they are digital or dial and whatever other technical features they may have, I'd like to compliment the minister and the former government, for that matter, on implementing the Enquiry B.C. service. I say to all members that if you haven't referred your constituents to it, you should. In my constituency office I frequently find that one of the most valuable tools for serving constituents is the use of Enquiry B.C. Rather than sorting through a maze of government telephone books and organizational charts on how to get to the right place, one phone call to Enquiry B.C. very quickly solves the problem promptly and courteously. It's an absolutely wonderful service.
It is also important, hon. Chair, to understand that in governing and servicing this province, we all do not live in compact urban ridings such as I do. Where a government office may not be a short bus ride away and where the cities and towns are widely dispersed, the Enquiry B.C. service equalizes service access to all parts of the province. I don't know about the technical details -- I am sure that any member can sit down with the technician and find out. But when it comes to the policy objective of providing access to government services on an equal basis to all parts of this province, I compliment the minister and I compliment the former government. I hope that this service will continue to be valued by all members, and that we will see it for years in the future.
[4:30]
K. Jones: The foregoing was not a paid political announcement but a public service announcement.
I would just like to wind up by asking: is there any assessment process in place to determine whether or not the money is being best spent in this department?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is.
With that, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 4:32 p.m.
The Committee met at 6:44 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
On vote 27: minister's office, $325,600.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I hope to say a few words to describe in general what the ministry is proposing this year. But before that I'd like to introduce my staff: my deputy minister, John Allan; my assistant deputy minister, Bruce McRae, minerals; assistant deputy minister, energy, Peter Ostergaard; executive director of revenue and operations, Joan Hesketh; and financial officer, Jennifer Smith. They're here to help me describe to you the things that need description.
[6:45]
The budget this year had to recognize and address four elements: first of all, of course, the general fiscal needs of the province; next, the state of the industries of the province: minerals, coal, electricity, and oil and gas; the general overriding need for more consultation in all government activities -- and certainly we did that within this ministry; and also the need for consultation in the aboriginal resource management area, as well as the consultation that proceeds on land use activities. It also recognizes and addresses the long-term goal of
[ Page 7691 ]
sustainability, which is an ongoing direction of this government. In the context of that budget, we look at deriving our sustained economic and social benefits for British Columbians from their very abundant energy and mineral resources. At the same time, we are looking at conservation and efficiency in the land use imperatives.
The budget clearly recognizes the importance of energy and minerals to our revenues and to our regions and communities. Both these industries contribute significantly to our communities right across the province, to every part of the province and very significantly to the smaller as well as the larger cities and towns in British Columbia. We recognize in the budget the importance of exports to our industries. Again, I might mention for the record that this ministry accounts for approximately one-quarter of Canada's exports to Japan and Korea -- it's in that area. This is significant, obviously, not only in the provincial context but also in the national context.
The budget also recognizes the importance of energy and minerals to our base of technology and expertise. In both these areas British Columbia has people at the leading edge of what's happening in the world. We have mining expertise that allows British Columbia mines with ore qualities that are only a fraction of what they are elsewhere to compete in a global market. We have natural gas expertise, expertise in electricity and significant technologies to go along with our experts in order to make it very clear that British Columbia stands among the leaders in both these industries worldwide.
This year's budget is presented not only in vote 27, which I have moved here and in which by general practice we will discuss the full budget, but it is presented in votes 27 to 31, which include my office vote, $325,600. The ministry operations are vote 28. That amount, which is the major and significant portion of it all, is $63,798,380. Both the B.C. Utilities Commission, vote 29, and the B.C. Energy Council, vote 30, are $10 votes. The Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue-sharing agreement, vote 31, is in the amount of $300,000. In addition, we administer the statutory special account for Vancouver Island gas pipeline assistance of $4,380,000. The FTE or full-time-equivalent complement for this budget year is 365.
Compared to last year's figures, for members' convenience, here are a few noteworthy differences or changes. First of all, our overall total budget of nearly $64 million is up from $38 million last year. The difference can be attributed to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline expenditures as they were put in the budget -- more specifically, $27 million of grants and contribution, which is a new financing transaction entry in our books. The accounting policy of the comptroller general has changed, requiring that that amount be put into our budget. It represents the estimate of the loan disbursement. Let me try to put that in a little more understandable form. You will recall that, on June 7, I announced the government had negotiated an agreement in principle to substantially reduce the risk that government held, and the financial support needed, for the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Once the final contracts are signed, we expect to obtain a refund of approximately $20 million from the previous year's loans. The l993-94 loan disbursement and the deemed grant is reduced to approximately $7 million. However, until the new deal is finalized, we must show our accounts as they were based on the old deal. So that is one of the significant differences between last year's budget and this year's budget that you will see on the books.
You will see, as I believe my colleague has already noted, that the federal-provincial mineral development funding agreement has no funding in our budget this year. That was a reluctant deferral on our part. However, activities will continue this year under federal contributions. The federal activity perhaps had been less than it might have been up to that time, and so we are counting on the fact that that will go ahead.
The FTEs, as I said, are down from 391 to 365. So far this has been achieved with no layoffs of permanent staff. It has been achieved with attrition and non-renewals of limited-term employees, and the layoffs have not yet occurred. By the way, we have maintained our freedom-of-information staffing as well as our employment equity staffing.
In the revenue picture, we are estimating our direct revenues at $263 million from this sector, which is an increase of $33 million from the $230 million of last year. As most of you may be aware, the petroleum industry is a bright spot in our economy. There is no question that a significant increase in confidence is being shown by the industry in its exploration budgets and in its proposals for development. That has been clear, not only in our land sales, but also just last week when we went as a ministry to Calgary and staged a B.C. day for members of the petroleum industry who have interests mainly in the northeastern part of the province -- or maybe other areas. Certainly there was great resiliency, anticipation and optimism.
We have, since last year, abolished two fees connected to the mining industry. We abolished the notice-of-work fee and the land tax on mining access roads, both taxes that had been of considerable concern to the mining industry, and in a way that responded with the largest sum in dollars. They definitely do make a difference to the industry and to those who labour away in the communities.
Last year our budget laid the groundwork for meeting our new challenges with particular moves in policy development, environmental protection, energy efficiency and conservation. In consultation on public policy issues and in this year's budget, we have allowed for our activities -- our action -- to be focused in these areas.
For minerals, we have put forward a mineral strategy which unites our key priorities. It has three main thrusts: increasing the amount of exploration in British Columbia, enhancing the competitiveness of the industry and -- the third main thrust, which covers so many of the other things we're doing -- encouraging the industry to move to more value-added activities to bring more value to the province for our raw resource.
These three directions and the whole mineral strategy were supported by our reorganization within the ministry. We have ensured that we will have more
[ Page 7692 ]
ministry staff in the regions. Ministry staff will deal with proactive work in connection with government-wide initiatives such as the protected-areas strategy and the CORE process. We are working on these things with industry, mining industry unions and representatives of communities.
Since last year we have experienced a significant restructuring in the coal industry. Since 1991, six of British Columbia's eight coal mines have changed owners and undergone financial restructuring. The whole business took a great deal of work by both government and the private sector. Most specifically, and most publicly in the west, are bankruptcy situations. It isn't quite a year since Westar declared bankruptcy. Approximately a year ago, however, both of the Westar mines opened on a smaller tonnage basis. Both of them are operating, shipping coal and have contracts so that they will continue to operate in the coming year. The low point was definitely hit in 1992. Tonnages began to increase from the time that the Greenhills mine reopened. The tonnages are beginning to go up. The Elkview mine has just begun to operate again. There are some indications that the tonnage will soon be increased there as well.
This year, government will continue to work with the industry to maintain and develop markets. Last December, I as minister visited both Japan and Korea to ensure that the industry was able to maintain its markets, and to talk to our customers about what the government expected of the coal industry and how we felt that the coal industry was significant and important to the province. We will continue community adjustment efforts to assist workers, particularly in the Elk Valley -- although that's not the only area. The efforts in enhanced thermal coal opportunities will be pursued.
In energy we have done a lot of work as well. We have a strong commitment to consultation on policy, and to sound regulation in the energy area. Again, that has been supported by the work of the Energy Council, which has been in existence for approximately a full year, and through the British Columbia Utilities Commission. One of the most important things that we have done in connection with these two consultative bodies has been to lead a government initiative in participant assistance. Of course, we have also amended the legislation which allows the Utilities Commission to assign costs, to allow for assistance to interested participants who can prove that they have a stake in some decision.
[7:00]
We have done a lot of policy work on independent power production and on social costing, which continues right now as one of the more exciting things that we are doing. A conference on social costing is winding up today. It was sponsored by this ministry, the Ministry of Environment, the Energy Council, the Utilities Commission, B.C. Gas and B.C. Hydro -- a number of bodies that are talking with the best experts on the continent about social costing. We have done policy work on short- and long-term electricity export policies, and I am sure we will be talking more about that in response to questions.
We have initiated a considerable amount of work related to the Columbia River, which is not only connected to the negotiation of the return of the downstream benefits entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty, but goes beyond that to a number of policy issues that we have dealt with with B.C. Hydro. We have had a number of meetings with the regions, and we work with the Ministry of Economic Development on using the resources and seeing that the energy resource is available and used well. We have completed a significant series of negotiations with Vancouver Island gas companies and have been able to achieve an agreement that significantly reduces the risk the province bore in the original agreement signed between Pacific Coast Energy and the federal and provincial governments.
We have addressed the issue of energy efficiency and continue to improve the levels of efficiency that must be achieved, not only in appliances that use energy in the home, but also in windows and doors and shower heads and thermostats that make a difference to energy use, although they themselves are not the kind of thing you plug into the wall. We are getting closer to Building Code improvements. We've done a lot of work with that, and we expect it will make a significant difference in the energy conservation we can achieve.
We are now working very closely to see that we integrate our people, our ideas and our policy into the discussions of land use that are going on at the CORE tables. We have representatives at all of them. We will have more people in the regions doing that. As the protected-areas strategy is implemented, and as it goes to CORE, we will play a significant part in determining just exactly what areas will be protected and which ones will be left to multiple-use management.
We feel very strongly that this budget follows up the initiatives we laid out at the beginning of our term and that this government is moving closer to better processes for public participation and good policy direction. We are therefore able to achieve some significant results in working with the industries that we're particularly connected to, all the mineral industries -- and that is a large number of them -- as well as energy industries. We believe that public policy or the public good is being served significantly by the directions we're going in policy and consultation. We are committed to consultation that is real and that will achieve effect. We spend a considerable amount of the time that the ministry puts in to see that that is done.
It's a pleasure to be here for the debate on the estimates of this ministry. I take my chair now in anticipation of some probing and brilliant questions.
D. Jarvis: I'll start off by saying that I wish to thank the minister's deputy, Mr. Allan, for going through the estimates breakdown of expenditures with us earlier, and explaining to us how it was all set up. It looks pretty good and most of the minister's vote counts are down, percentage-wise -- except for that one with grants and contributions, I guess, which was up something like $27 million. But he explained to us that this was -- and I've talked to an accountant and he said it was -- good accounting practices that have now been
[ Page 7693 ]
brought forward. We appreciate that it was for a change in accounting practices and for lost opportunity cost.
In any event, if you don't mind, I shall ask some general questions tonight, and then we could get into Energy tomorrow. I understand the minister is going to have some people from Vancouver come over. A few of our members who aren't available tonight have questions pertaining to such areas as gas, drilling and/or pipelines, etc. -- if that's in order with you -- that might prove fairly contentious.
In any event, today was a very remarkable day. It appears to me, as has been said to me before, that we crossed the Rubicon today as far as mining goes. I doubt whether in the next few years we'll see much investment or development of mines in this province, in view of what has occurred today. Without going into the deep philosophical aspects of it, I'm rather surprised that I didn't hear more from the minister about the fact she was supporting the Windy Craggy situation one way or another. She was very quiet about it, and I don't think that has caused good feelings in the mining industry, on the premise of the calls I've been getting in the last week or so since the rumours started running rampant.
In any event, last year at this time the minister mentioned that the energy and mining sectors contributed over $1.5 billion a year to government revenues, and that 25 communities were wholly dependent upon mineral activity. As she said at the time, there were in excess of 25,000 well-paying jobs spread throughout the different sectors of the province. I wonder if the minister could perhaps tell me how many communities are now partially or wholly dependent on mining in this province today.
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I want to apologize to the member for not making any comment on the decision that we arrived at today. I felt as though I'd talked about it, but I guess I didn't this evening. I agree with the decision the government made today to preserve an area that is of very special ecological importance globally. It was not, however, an easy decision to make. It had to be made in view of the values that would be forgone when we made that decision. We were very aware that in the Haines triangle or the Tatshenshini-Alsek area of northwestern British Columbia there is an extremely valuable mineral ore body that has not been totally.... It certainly had been sketched, and the potential was there. It looked as though the ore grades were consistently high and it was a very rich ore body. I don't think anyone doubts that. Nevertheless, there are other reasons for the decision. The decision was made because this is an opportunity to preserve an area of unique importance in the world's biological systems. It is a unique area in terms of its biodiversity and in terms of some of the species that exist there. It is unique in the sense of the size of a preserved area in this world, where wilderness is becoming more and more scarce. So it's a forward-looking decision, and the government is committed to ensuring that those kinds of ecologically sound decisions are made.
I was happy, of course, to observe that the Liberal Party in its election promises said that it very much favoured the preservation of the Tatshenshini area. So I assume that your party supports it, even though you seem to be saying that your position is something different.
As for whether or not our decision will work against investment in B.C., I would venture to say that the countries where a lot of the global investment comes from these days are well aware of British Columbia's importance in the world as an area of sound ecology. I think that they understand as well as we do the benefit to the world community of the kind of preservation that went ahead today.
I think they will also appreciate one of the other things that the government is doing, and that is saying: "We promised an increase in protected areas. As quickly as possible, let's delineate those areas." This is part of the 12 percent of British Columbia that will be protected areas. Therefore, without letting this issue drag on any longer, we have said that there is a boundary right along the Haines Highway, up by the Haines triangle. Now we know what is allowed inside that area, and that the area outside is not protected. We know very clearly that nearly 1 percent of British Columbia's territory is now in the protected area we intend to reach. So part of what we are doing is bringing the kind of certainty for the industry that they need in order to do their work.
I'm sure you may be asking more questions and we may be making more comments on this, but it is always difficult for those of us who see an ore body and get excited about the probabilities that are there and the potential. It's difficult to say that that ore body can't be developed. I share that feeling with people in the mining industry; but I also share the excitement of what is going to happen with that large area which is preserved.
On your question about how many communities in British Columbia depend solely on mining, I would say probably one less than last year, and that would be Cassiar.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate that there's a line now drawn there, but your government is committed to going up to 12 percent. I may add that the Liberal Party supported that approximately two years ago, when they were first coming into the election. They felt that at least 12 percent of this province should be put into parks. However, it appears that people up there do not have any confidence in this government at the moment, because of the fact that this is the first line that's been drawn. There is no definite feeling about where they are going to go with the land issue. That is why you will find that there will be some reticence about investing in this province, because, besides your parks plan, we have several other land issue situations which could affect the mining industry in this province considerably.
[7:15]
With regard to the Liberal Party's statement on the Tatshenshini area prior to the election, I'm afraid I wasn't in the policy convention which came up with that type of statement. As I've told you before, my
[ Page 7694 ]
family has been in this province perhaps longer than this whole room put together, so I have just as much vested interest in this province as anyone else. However, there comes a time when we must make tough decisions. I think the decision that your government has made on the Tatshenshini, that it is the only area to go, is perhaps not the best decision they could have made. The options could have been split, like the Owen commission's three recommendations: either all -- the way that you chose; or defer it until more investigation is done; or a 75-25 split -- the minor part being for multiple use, including mining. The mining industry itself was prepared to go along with that premise. It's quite obvious that there's only a certain part of that area that would have minerals in it.
I was just trying to think of what you said before about the line being drawn. It's not as though this area is completely foreign to roads and pipelines -- there has been a pipeline up the side of that road in Haines for the last 20-odd years. Did the Ministry of Energy and Mines do any investigation? Did you do a geological survey in there? Are you aware of the statement as to how many grizzly bears, etc. are in the area? Now this is going to be the largest preserved area for grizzly bears in the world. I've been informed that these statements are in error, and that those people doing geological studies in there did not talk to people who know the area. So a lot of this information is hearsay. I'm just wondering if your department has done any of that.
The Chair: Hon. member, while these are interesting questions, I would ask you to address them through the Chair, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: As far as compensation is concerned, we have said ever since we've been in government that we believe in fair compensation when land is to be taken by government for use other than what it has been used for, or allowed to be. It is very clear, with this issue, that we made the statement that we believe in compensation that is fair to the claim holders. We will be working with the claim holders directly to determine how we can work with them to assure that there is a fair settlement, and we will be doing that immediately. There is no question in our minds but that the holders of those claims need to be compensated fairly. So that is what we will be doing, and we have said so.
I would certainly call the member's attention to the CORE report on Tatshenshini-Alsek land use. What the commissioner presented to us were the three options that you put forward. What he said, however, and what we determined, was that mining development would preclude maintaining full values for biodiversity and wilderness tourism, because these high values coincide in the Tats Creek and in the Tatshenshini Valley. If you want to preserve the biodiversity of that region, you have to look at the core of the area. Unfortunately for us who have done geological surveys in the area and looked to see -- as closely as we could -- what the value of the mineral deposit was, we know that that exists right in the core of where the ecology is unique. If it were on the edges, it would be somewhat different, but right in the core is where the mineral deposit exists.
It was very clear, therefore, and certainly the commissioner said very clearly, that you could not preserve that biological diversity if you had mining there. Therefore the option of preservation was not an option that included mining. It was a joint thing, but you couldn't consider that you had preserved the wilderness if you allowed an extractive industry in there.
So that is the decision that we made, as I say, with great difficulty. This was not, by the way, a decision that dealt with anything but land use. It certainly didn't deal with the issues that would be dealt with through a mine review process. It dealt with land use issues. That's what we looked and that is the basis on which we made our decision.
D. Jarvis: It was obviously a land issue decision. As I said before, we have crossed the Rubicon, and you are not going to see very much investment in this province in the next two years. If you say that that's not right, then I would suggest that you get on a board and look around, and find out what's going to go on. When they have a dozen or so other areas in this world to invest their money in, and you say you have a nice little piece of land in British Columbia -- a nice little mine -- do you think that that board is going to turn around and say that in view of this government's past performance, by all means they'll go to B.C.? Not on your life. And our people in Japan are not going to think about coming to British Columbia, either. There won't be any development in this province for some years to come.
Let's go back to my original general question. I was asking about the communities in the province, and you said there was only the Cassiar one that wasn't available.... Has there been any difference in per capita wages in the mining industry?
Hon. A. Edwards: I don't believe there is any measurement yet that would indicate a change in the per capita level of income for mine workers. We know already that there are fewer mine workers getting paid by the mining industry. But so far I don't think there are any figures that would show any change. As far as I know -- and this is not based on figures -- my own understanding of where settlements are would certainly not indicate that there is going to be much of an increase in what people are getting.
D. Jarvis: Following that, then, it appears to me that revenue from mines has been going down over the past year, and the amount of production has been going down. We've been slowed down on nearly every front across this province. As far as tax contributions to the economy go, I see in the consolidated revenue fund that you have estimated that we're going to have an increase of approximately $21 million in mining. Can you give me some idea of where that $21 million is expected to come from?
Hon. A. Edwards: As you may know, if you know our Mineral Tax Act, when a company moves from its
[ Page 7695 ]
early stages and actually pays off its capitalization, it moves into a different tax bracket. We have mines moving into different tax brackets, where they will be paying a higher mineral tax. Highland Valley Copper is one of those mines.
D. Jarvis: Do you think it's reasonable, hon. minister, that revenue is going to be increased by the fact that you're raising taxes? Is that going to help the industry in any way? I mean, the industry is in a pretty precarious position as it is, with the capital tax, etc.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, the Mineral Tax Act was revised three years ago. It is considered to be a very fair tax act, in the sense that it taxes mines that are in their early stages of development at a very low rate and lets them get to a stage where they have paid back their capitalization before they move into another tax bracket where they are paying at a different rate. That is considered to be quite a fair method of taxation. Therefore it is not something that has been sprung on anyone. It is very clearly a matter of following the legislation in the Mineral Tax Act. When a company as large as Highland Valley Copper moves into that area, obviously revenues will increase somewhat. Whether they will exactly meet that figure or not.... That is our estimate as to where they will go.....
D. Jarvis: I find it hard to really appreciate that that's good logical thinking as far as a government goes. When you start looking at your revenue fund, every year in the last three years you've dropped anywhere from $10 million to $30 million in revenue. Now there are no new mines coming on. In fact, mines are closing left and right every day. For example, back in 1990, the revenue for Mines was over $73 million. In 1991 it was $45 million -- almost a $30 million drop. The next year it was down to $41 million. This year it was down to $30 million. Now all of a sudden you show an increase of up to $51 million. You have fewer mines and no new mines coming on. Are you just going to tax them to death? What do you expect to do the year after that?
Hon. A. Edwards: I hope the hon. member recognizes that there were several coal mines last year not paying tax at all. The difference between 1991-92 actual and 1992-93 in the revised forecast -- which is closer to actual than the original estimate -- is largely because of the problems in the coal industry. So in our estimates, it's much closer to being a difference between $42 million and $51 million than it is between $30 million and $51 million. In other words, imagine that the coal mines had run all last year and what the actual revenue would have been at that time. Therefore our estimate this year is based on the coal mines being back in operation and, certainly, a number of expansions of existing mines. There have been some expansions, if not the opening of new mines, and that will be the revenue in our estimates.
[7:30]
D. Jarvis: All right then, I think we'd better break things down. I didn't want to go into coal right at the moment, because I had a few questions later on that I was going to discuss, but I want to ask the minister: how many actual mines -- mineral and coal -- are in production right now, and how many do you expect to be in production next year?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are eight coalmines in the province -- I always find that number easy: five in the southeast, two in the northeast and one on Vancouver Island. As I've said before, those mines have all gone through a restructuring, and every one of them expects to continue and perhaps expand. There are ten major B.C. metal mines, and if the member would like them, I could certainly table this list if he wants it. But for the information of those listening breathlessly to the debate, they are: Dome Mountain at Smithers, which is run by Timmins Nickel; Endako at Endako, run by Placer Dome; Equity Silver at Houston; Gibraltar at McLeese Lake; Highland Valley Copper; Island Copper at Rupert Inlet; the Myra Falls operation on Buttle Lake; Nickel Plate at Penticton; the Premier gold project at Stewart; and the Sullivan mine in Kimberley.
If the member would like some information, I have some indication about closures expected in the near future. In 1993 the expectations are that Equity Silver and Premier may close. Island Copper, Goldstream and Dome Mountain may close by 1996, and we have a number of others that we predict will close by the first year of the twenty-first century. Nickel Plate may close in 1997, Myra Falls in 1999, Snip in 2000 and Sullivan in 2001. Similco has announced a closure if the price of copper doesn't improve and if they can't get it back in operation. There is a possibility that Similco would not reopen.
We have certified in 1993, or within the next two months we expect to certify.... Certified right now are: Quesnel River Gold, which is a $14 million certification proposal; Sulphurets for $42 million; and Pacific Talc for $20 million. Certificates being signed by the parties right now include: Laredo Limestone, which is a $30 million project; Bearcub Feldspar, which is an $8 million project; Domtar Gypsum, a new pit at an existing mine, which would be a $400,000 project; and Mount Milligan, which would be a brand-new $440 million project. Within two months we expect that there might be certification of the Lime Creek extension, Crystal Peak and the Hedley gold tailings project. A total of $559 million is projected in investment.
D. Jarvis: I assume that Mount Milligan is in excess of $400 million of that $559 million. Have you been talking to the management of Mount Milligan lately? Are they prepared to start off in business and put their money into British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: My business is certifying mines. Certainly we like to keep in touch, but I can't imagine why a company would go to all the trouble that they have gone to to certify their mine and then not go ahead, if they can find the capitalization or when the commodity price is right, and so on. The mining companies are not a cautious group. They are not a nervous group. Usually they are very willing to take
[ Page 7696 ]
risks; they do it all the time. These companies have been in this process for a considerable length of time, and my prediction is that they are in to stay in.
D. Jarvis: In my conversations with the various mining companies, most of them are in dire trouble. They aren't prepared to risk their capital in British Columbia at this point.
The industry is in a fairly critical state. I think you will have to agree with me on that point. What action is being planned by this ministry to address the mining concerns with respect to taxation and perhaps bureaucratic delays which occurred in the past? I'll ask you those first, before I get into the mine development assessment program.
Hon. A. Edwards: We have been doing a considerable amount of work on comparative analysis of taxation for mining in British Columbia. We've done that work in conjunction with provinces right across the country, and we've been doing some continuing work ourselves. We also have extended an invitation to the industry to discuss these issues, to see where we can and should make some adjustments that make sense to both of us. There's no question that we have done that. We've also been able, as I said before, to remove taxation in two significant areas. One is on the notice-of-work fee and the other is on mining roads. These may sound like insignificant changes, but they have addressed the issue of the taxation load on the small prospector. That's really important.
You talk about bureaucratic delays, which is another concern of the mining industry. I can't go on talking about legislation that is currently before the House, except to say, in short, that we have done a considerable amount of consultation and made some changes to address those concerns. In the Environmental Assessment Act we have time frames -- all very clear recognition of what that industry in particular wanted if there was a change coming forward in certification for mines -- and that legislation is currently before the House. We are in the process of consulting with the mining industry right now, among other industries. When the legislation is passed, there will be consultation about the regulations. I talked to the minister today, and we certainly agreed that we had both come to the same conclusion: it would be very unlikely that we would go out and do consultation to put the regulations together if there weren't somewhere another amendment for the legislation -- which probably will come into effect in about nine months to a year, certainly not in the immediate future.
Meanwhile, this ministry has very clearly put its mind to ensuring that we do not have any unnecessary delays in the permitting process. We have put out nine permits just this year, I think, and 13 since we came into office. That says that this ministry is very clearly committed to being sure that we are getting the work done, and getting it moved through our ministry and all the other ministries that have to respond before we can put things through.
D. Jarvis: Is any type of a prospectors' program slated? Do you have any program as far as, say, tax incentives? What was saved in the notice-of-work fees for prospectors last year versus '92?
Hon. A. Edwards: To get the simple part over with, the notice-of-work fees brought $100,000 last year.
As far as prospectors' programs are concerned, incentives for prospectors were cancelled in 1990, and we have not been able to fund a similar program since then. We do fund programs for training of prospectors, and we also give some assistance to chambers of mines across the province. The training is done through the chambers as well, and they get some success. They sponsor programs which, I have been told by various prospectors who have taken them, are invaluable to them. There are advanced courses and basic courses, and I think there is even a medium level. So there are a number of levels of courses there, and we continue to fund those.
D. Jarvis: Could you advise us how much property tax was received from the mining industry on access roads last year, and elaborate on what the savings would be now that you have reduced it?
Hon. A. Edwards: We could get the exact figure in a minute, but it was $500,000 to $600,000 last year.
D. Jarvis: In regard to the mineral development agreement with Ottawa, were there any tax structures that would be of benefit to B.C., or was it all put into research and development?
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly think that every dollar spent was of value to B.C. It addressed some directions that were different from where our people do their work, but we signed an agreement that we felt was of very great value to B.C. It is directed to geoscience research and development, and some education activities that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
[7:45]
D. Jarvis: There was a national government-industry task force that dealt with competitiveness with the United States. Are you aware of any recommendations out of that that would be of benefit to British Columbians?
Hon. A. Edwards: If the hon. member is asking about a study that was presented to the mines ministers last September, it was a fact-finding study. That study was initiated to find some facts. It found the facts and presented them to the various members of the convention, and there were no recommendations.
D. Jarvis: When the minister was talking about new mines that were coming on, I'm not sure if she mentioned Polestar. Is it coming on for sure?
Hon. A. Edwards: A number of mines have been in the process for a considerable length of time, and that
[ Page 7697 ]
is one that we certainly hope to be able to deal with very soon.
D. Jarvis: About a month ago you stated that you compared the competitive position of our tax structure with other provinces across the country and around the world, and that you would be happy to see what comes out of that and would do what you could to ensure that our tax structure was competitive. Did this review take into account neighbouring U.S. jurisdictions?
Hon. A. Edwards: The study included other Canadian provinces, the U.S. and some Australian states. Obviously, yes it did.
D. Jarvis: Were you aware of how much mining and investment production is actually flowing to South American nations?
Hon. A. Edwards: I am aware that Canadian companies, who are actors in the global mining scene, have been looking to the South American and Central American countries for the last ten years. They have made some extremely significant discoveries down there and have developed some mines. Those countries that previously were not welcoming investment have opened their arms to and in fact sought out investment. Companies who operate in a global environment want to explore where there are good mineral deposits. I am well aware that Canadian mining companies have been very active, particularly in Chile. In fact, the Canadian and British Columbian mining industries are among those doing most of the development work in mining with foreign investment in Chile. Yes, I am well aware of that.
I am also aware that we in British Columbia are going to have to make our mineral resource infrastructure and our political and fiscal stability very attractive to investors who operate on a global scene where ore grades are often considerably better than they are in British Columbia. Nevertheless, we do have good ore bodies and experts who have the technology and the ability to make those ore bodies work in this world. We also have an educated, well-trained, reliable workforce. With all of those things, I believe British Columbia can compete on the world scene. I am well aware, however, that some of the South American countries are very strong competitors.
D. Jarvis: You mentioned about a year ago that you were working internally in your ministry and having a national government-industry task force look into what could be done to restore our competitiveness. What were the results of that task force and has any of that been implemented?
Hon. A. Edwards: There were a number of other things done besides the tax competitiveness study, which the member referred to previously. A task group was formed to continue work on that study and to come back with further reports. In addition, the mines ministers of all the provinces and the federal government have agreed enthusiastically to the Whitehorse mining initiative. This is a very broad-based initiative in the sense that it addresses a number of themes, including land access use and allocation. It addresses the workforce, the workplace, the community, the environment, aboriginal issues and financial performance and taxation. Each of these areas has a task group that is working on it. Interestingly enough, a lot of the work under the Whitehorse mining initiative will have to be done by individual provinces because mining is the jurisdiction of provincial government. Therefore it's the provincial governments that will be putting in what can happen under the mining initiative. The federal government is working somewhat with us and also working with us when we gather together and make some agreements.
We have a great deal of hope that a proposal that went to the mines ministers' meeting last September will bring a considerable degree of improvement to what happens in Canada as far as mining is concerned. The proposal that was brought by the Mining Association of Canada suggested not only that we continue to work on these task forces, but that we put together a communications strategy and that we find ways to do a better job of talking to the public in Canada. That was a very clear initiative brought by the association, and it was responded to by the ministers -- that is another part of it.
D. Jarvis: Do you have the results of the federal-provincial competitive study, and did it consider international comparisons?
Hon. A. Edwards: The analysis that was done through the tax competitiveness study has been received by the government. We are reviewing that analysis with the Mining Association of British Columbia, and when we complete our analysis we will be publishing the results.
D. Jarvis: Perhaps another line at this moment, then. We should stop shipping out all our natural resources -- I imagine you feel the same way. What is the government's position toward this? Do you favour, for example, a copper smelter, coking plants and steel mills in British Columbia? What is your opinion of that?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the third leg of our mineral strategy, which is to investigate value-added opportunities in our resources, indicates that yes, we would like to add value to our resources before we sell them, and certainly our resources are such a large component of export goods that obviously some of the value-added would be in the export stream. We have followed up with some proponents of a copper smelter with the Ministry of Economic Development. They have been working with them, and certainly we talked about that. We are following up and hope to talk to people who have an interest in direct reduced iron -- DRI -- a proposal for using a metal ore which would make steel with a different type of process. That's another area that we've been looking at. We have looked at a coking plant for the coal industry. We have looked at any number of projects and proposals and will continue to do that,
[ Page 7698 ]
because it is important that we add as much value as possible to any of our resources before they are either used domestically or exported.
D. Jarvis: I'm going around on a different route now at the moment, but are there any areas of the province that your ministry has excluded from exploration?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a rather difficult question because, as you know, there are no-staking reserves for a number of reasons. You put out no-staking reserves for communities and for other projects when they develop, and certainly there is no mining allowed in class A parks. There will be no-staking reserves in some of the areas that are designated to be studied as protected areas, but 80 percent of British Columbia is open to staking.
D. Jarvis: The mineralized zones are within the domain of the unknown throughout this province, as you are probably aware. There are many techniques to try to find them. There has to be a hole available for mineralization somewhere out there. It's apparent that there's a scientific method to get to it, so you have, I assume, done a geophysical map of the whole province. You mentioned that you were going to be doing that in the future and I'm wondering if it has been done yet.
Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, geophysical mapping is in the domain of the federal government. Most of the province has been done, although not all of it.
D. Jarvis: If our province is opened up to a larger land base, are there any guidelines that your ministry would consider?
[8:00]
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm going to have to ask the member to clarify his question. I'm not quite sure whether he means that we should go in and take a bit of Alberta over, or what.
D. Jarvis: There is great apprehension out there with regard to the government's policy, especially about negotiations of aboriginal claims. It's likely these negotiations will finally be settled on legal grounds or moral issues in the near future. As a consequence of the final settlement, which would seemingly have the aboriginal community in control of areas of possible mineral extraction, is the government considering establishing new ground rules -- if the inevitable should happen?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the government has moved very quickly to deal with aboriginal land claims and to move to the negotiating table with aboriginal people, so that we can get past some of the uncertainty that is there as well. I don't know whether that's what the member is questioning, but I would like to repeat that the reorganization within the ministry -- that I mentioned in my opening remarks -- will mean that this ministry will be able to be involved closely in any land use decisions that are made throughout the province, particularly with relation to CORE and to the protected-areas strategy. With our staff moving further into the regions, with us reallocating their tasks to enable them to participate in land use decisions, we certainly expect that we will have a closer eye on exactly what happens with those decisions.
D. Jarvis: Most of our copper mines in this province are borderline as to whether they are economical or not. Of course, the price of copper is dropping and all the rest of it. So we're going to have to get out there and -- as we were talking about before -- create a smelter, say, in the Kitimat area, which is the one that has been proposed. Can you tell me at this stage what your government's or what your ministry's feelings are toward that smelter?
Hon. A. Edwards: The answer to the question is that this government has shown a great deal of interest in the copper smelter proposals, and there is no question that a copper smelter would add value to our resource. We have a number of copper ore bodies in the province. As a matter of fact, within the recent past, I have had a number of people talking to me about how excited they are about developing a copper deposit -- as soon as the commodity prices rise, of course. I assure you that with the price of copper the way it is right now, I don't know that anybody would be developing a copper mine immediately.
However, when you look to the future, everybody is expecting that the price will improve again, and we would certainly look in every direction we possibly could to see that we could help someone who wants to put a copper smelter together. It's a good idea, and we think it would be a good idea.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
D. Jarvis: Has the Economic Development Council given any consideration toward assisting a future copper smelter?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure if you meant someone other.... You said Economic Development Council, but I assume you meant the Ministry of Energy. I believe that the Ministry of Economic Development has also had talks with proponents of a copper smelter, and I know that the minister has told me they would be very enthusiastic about a feasible proposal.
D. Jarvis: Does the hon. minister believe that the government should perhaps be in a minority position in a smelter, and assist in helping build a smelter in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: That's an interesting proposal from the member opposite. This government would certainly be open to considering any ways that we could, for the public good, work with proponents of a feasible copper smelter.
[ Page 7699 ]
D. Jarvis: A considerable slowdown in the mining industry did actually occur when it was suggested last year that the Schwindt commission report come into effect. It caused some of the slowdown, and a fear that the provincial government had a very negative attitude toward one of this province's major revenue-generating industries. The two classic cases, at that point, were probably Crystal Peak and Windy Craggy. However, you have answered about those tonight. You have said that the Crystal Peak's permitting process has gone through all the stages, including the economic review.
Other than the basic rules that are in the mine development assessment process, is there anything else that would impair future mines coming on the market in British Columbia if they were done in a responsible way?
Hon. A. Edwards: I would like to clarify that the Schwindt report never came into effect. The Schwindt report was advice to the government. The government received the report and has not yet made any response to it, nor have we yet put together a policy on our stated commitment to fair compensation any time the government has to take land for development of a public project. The Schwindt report, as I said, did not come into effect. We are still committed to fair compensation. We have made it very clear, particularly today in the announcement on the Tatshenshini-Alsek, that this government is committed to fair compensation when a claim is taken for a public purpose.
I just want to clarify what I said. I said that Crystal Peak was in the permitting process, and that we are hoping and expecting to be able to find that process complete soon. I would then answer the member's question, hon. Chair, by saying that as far as I know, no.
R. Neufeld: I was interested in the question the Liberal member asked about the participation the government would have in a copper smelter, and I was a little interested in the response. Maybe the minister could just carry on a little more as to how she feels her ministry could get involved. Is it by direct ownership, through loan guarantees, through loans to companies to get started or simply by providing land? Maybe she could expound on that a little further.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, it's always interesting to be asked to fulminate on something, and I take the member's request as a very generous invitation. However, it is not really up to this ministry to do the kinds of things that you have suggested, as far as the copper smelter is concerned. We have suggested that we will encourage value-added whenever we can, but that is up the Ministry of Economic Development if they are going to consider actual proposals for a development that involves provincial participation.
What I did say, in the broadest general sense, is that government is interested in ensuring that feasible projects that will add value to resources in British Columbia will be considered. If people have proposals, we are certainly willing to listen to them.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that the minister cannot make those commitments on behalf of her government, but I was interested in what commitments her ministry could make and how her government feels they could get involved in it. That's where I was coming from. So I think the answers that I received will suffice for now.
I am also interested in the minister's comment on fair compensation and what transpired with Bill 32, which died on the order paper last year. I'm coming into this debate a little late, so I don't know if you went through the compensation issue or talked about it at all. I'm interested in what the minister feels is fair compensation. Are we going to be looking at new legislation on compensation coming forward soon? Obviously there's going to be a large issue around the Tat and what happened there with Windy Craggy. Could the minister tell us a little bit about that? I am not trying to get into future policy, but she was quite adamant about fair compensation. So I would just like to know what she determines fair compensation to be.
The Chair: Please proceed, hon. minister, avoiding the need for legislation.
Hon. A. Edwards: I will first respond to the question on the copper smelter and what the ministry can do in that area. I didn't say -- which I think would have been useful to the debate -- that one thing this ministry can do is know the statistics. In other words, what are the projections for copper ore production in the province, and that kind of thing? Then I do something like visit Japan and Korea, as I did last December, to discuss with both the Japanese and the Koreans what their interest is and what their projections are as to the need for copper smelters in the world, and whether they're interested. I have done that. When we were there last December, I did talk to both Korean and Japanese companies about their interest in that kind of thing.
As far as fair compensation is concerned, obviously we were very clear today, and all I can talk about is what we as the ministry see for the company. We see a situation where we feel that there must be fair compensation, and we have said there will be fair compensation. We will meet within the very near future with all of the claim holders in the area that has been set aside for a new provincial class A park. We will talk with them and deal with a process that will bring them as quickly as possible to a fair settlement.
[8:15]
As you know, the issue of compensation for claims is currently before the courts, so it is an issue that doesn't lend itself well to extensive debate.
R. Neufeld: I assume that the minister is talking only about fair compensation in those terms for the Windy Craggy project, not about anything that has transpired in the rest of the province where a land base has been removed for park or other purposes. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, we are talking about talking to claim holders. There are 20 of them. Windy
[ Page 7700 ]
Craggy is only one. We are eager to have them talk with us very quickly so that we can reach some kind of an agreed process as quickly as possible. I would never say that we would want anything but consistency, so we will make every attempt to ensure that what agreements we come to will be consistent.
C. Tanner: Madam minister, if you are talking about compensation in the Windy Craggy case, with the decision that was made with governments other than your own -- admittedly, the final decision was made here, but other governments were taken into consideration, such as the Yukon, Alaska and the States -- can you foresee a situation where B.C. would be compensated by those other governments for some of the money they might have to pay to compensate those mining claims in that area?
Hon. A. Edwards: That is interesting speculation, but it is only speculation.
C. Tanner: The minister said earlier that one of the things that the Whitehorse agreement -- or the Whitehorse get-together with the other mining authorities in the country -- has to do is talk to the public in Canada about mining -- I assume, to teach the public so that it better understands what the mining fraternity is all about. Would the minister agree that perhaps another group of people she and the government have to talk to pretty quickly in British Columbia are the mining companies that are operating here? They have probably lost all sorts of faith in this government and this minister because of the decision that has been announced today.
Hon. A. Edwards: I have been talking to the mining industry in British Columbia. I have done a considerable amount of work to ensure that we are talking together and that we have been discussing not only the areas in which we have common ground, but some areas in which we diverge in our opinions. It is very clear that the industry was eager to participate in the mineral strategy; that what we have proposed there is something that industry wants. They want to deal with the three directions -- the focus of activity that we have put forward -- and they have been extremely cooperative so far in working with us to ensure that we can get some action on our mineral strategy in the directions that we want to go.
I believe that the decision made today about the Tatshenshini area is related to a very unusual area -- it is unique. It is a land use decision that allows preservation of wilderness, and that is what we were doing. We weren't doing anything other than talking about a land use decision, making a land use decision and announcing a land use decision. So in that realm, many people within the mining industry -- not everyone -- recognize that it was a unique situation. Normally when you have an area that is extremely well suited to preservation and to giving us a world-class ecological reserve, whereby diversity is unique and different, that kind of area does not exist where there is such a rich potential for the development of ore. Basically it's an unusual situation. It does not occur anywhere else in British Columbia. Those two kinds of extremely high values do not coexist in other places in British Columbia. I'm saying very clearly to the mining industry that this is not and should not be considered to be a bellwether of what's going to happen with every other mining application in B.C., because it certainly isn't.
C. Tanner: Has the minister received any immediate reaction from the mining industry to the fact that this decision did not go through the process that was set up by the minister for dealing with mines and assessing whether they should go through? Is the minister aware of a decision that has been made on Strathcona Park? I think it's called the Cream Silver mine. The Expropriation Compensation Board is looking at that, I believe. Has there been a decision there that will in any way indicate what people who have claims in the Tat area might expect?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, I would remind the member that we felt -- and it was agreed to by Geddes Resources, which at that time owned Windy Craggy -- that going through the process to any further stage, when we had not yet made a land use decision, was not the thing to do. They delayed their activities. Basically the mine development review process was suspended. I believe there was a very clear agreement that there was no longer any point in that company working that way, until the government had made its land use decision. We have now made the land use decision.
I'm not sure just exactly what your question was in relation to Cream Silver, which was a court decision that has been delivered. The Casamiro mine decision, which was dealt with by the expropriation board, has also been delivered. Both those cases are, in essence, before the courts.
C. Tanner: The minister said that the mining company in the Tat made a decision to delay the activity, indicating but not saying that the mine agreed with the process. That's not what I understand the situation to be. I understand that the mine's nose is very much out of joint. They're not only disappointed with the decision, but they didn't agree with the process either. The minister said they delayed their activities, but did they do that willingly or with the knowledge that you were going to make a decision?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I would certainly never say that the Windy Craggy ownership supported our decision; I would never be so foolish as to suppose that. Nevertheless, the owners of the Windy Craggy mine at the time -- Geddes Resources was the majority owner and operator -- did suspend their activities toward working for a permit. I believe it was clear that they recognized, if we were coming to a land use decision -- and we had assured them that we would come to that decision as quickly as possible -- that it made no sense to continue to spend money on the studies that might have to be done. Since that time the ownership of the mine has changed hands. I have met
[ Page 7701 ]
with the new owners. But I certainly wouldn't say they agree with our decision. I'm not even sure that they would not have wanted to continue with their permit activity, but that did not transpire before we made our decision on land use.
C. Tanner: On the court case that we referred to, the one I understood was in Strathcona, that decision was made by the Expropriation Compensation Board, I believe. I believe that the decision was somewhere around $350,000. Can the present owners of the mines in the Tatshenshini assume that that's an indication of what they could receive?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it would be improper to speculate as to whether or not a certain case would apply in what way. The Casamiro case, which was decided by the arbitration board, as I understand it, could be appealed. The Cream Silver case, which was a court decision, could be appealed. It would simply be inappropriate if I made some speculation as to what would happen there. These things are not final.
C. Tanner: I'm getting confused, because the minister keeps referring to the arbitration board and to a court case. I'm referring to the Expropriation Compensation Board, which made one of those two decisions, I believe. They made that decision because there was an adjudication between the government and the owners as to how to settle that dispute. In this Tat case, if there is a dispute with the owners and they can't settle with the government, surely we're going to see the same process. If we do, is there any indication that the decision by the Expropriation Compensation Board in Strathcona Park will be any signal as to what we're looking at in the other area, for Geddes?
The Chair: The question gives the Chair a bit of difficulty, as it requires a conclusion. It's a question in theory only and would require a theoretical answer, which does not fall under the direct administration of this minister's office.
Hon. A. Edwards: I was just going to say that the ministry's responsibility is to identify the claim holders and ensure that they have the opportunity to have a fair hearing.
C. Tanner: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact you're indicating, that I'm sort of reaching ahead into the future. On the other hand, I do think it's appropriate to the decision to....
The Chair: You're reaching quite a distance, actually, hon. member.
C. Tanner: Last year we had a bill introduced into the House which was withdrawn. We had a Schwindt report which gave indications to the government as to how to behave in circumstances like that. Both those decisions must come to bear on the decision that the government has got to make in the Tatshenshini decision and with Geddes Resources. Isn't that true? I'm talking about the past.
The Chair: Again, hon. member, that's not under the administrative capacity of this minister's office.
D. Jarvis: I want to ask the minister: did I hear you say that there were several, or even 20, other claim holders in the Tatshenshini-Haines triangle?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are 20 claim holders. One of them is Windy Craggy.
D. Jarvis: Would we be expected to give compensation to every one of them? Is that what we're looking forward to?
Hon. A. Edwards: We are looking toward fair compensation for every claim holder that has that claim taken because of the use decided by the provincial government.
C. Tanner: Madam Minister, I don't want you to speculate about the future. But given the circumstances of the consideration that's taken place, the reports in the newspaper and the reaction that I see in the press to your announcement today, wouldn't it be wise to move as quickly as possible to settle those claims in that area?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have said -- and the Premier and this government have said -- that we are committed to fair compensation for claim holders. We will ensure that the process to get their settlements is as quick and as fair as we can make it.
D. Jarvis: I want to just go back to the mine development assessment process as we have it now in your department. How many full-time employees are there in the MDAP?
Hon. A. Edwards: Five.
D. Jarvis: Isn't that wonderful. I fully expected to hear you say 55. I was surprised when I went out to an assessment of a mine over on the mainland. I drove up to the top of the mountain where there were 21 little vehicles. I asked them who the heck they all were. They started naming every ministry: Parks, Aboriginal Affairs, Fisheries -- the list went on and on. I was surprised there were that many there to do the assessment -- it was pretty amazing. So when you said five, you shook me there.
[8:30]
There's a pending integration with the Environment ministry, as we can see through Bill 32. Is your department going to be completely wiped out? Or is there going to be an integration? What is the process for that?
Hon. A. Edwards: It's interesting that the member sees what we can lever with our five employees -- we can certainly get a lot of activity.
[ Page 7702 ]
On the question of whether our five people who work in the mineral development assessment process would all automatically go to the agency that would do environmental impact assessment, the answer, of course, is no, because the environmental assessment review process continues to require that there be a project review. Most of the work that would be done on a project review would be done by ministry staff. Although it says environmental impact assessment, in fact, that whole process continues to be a project review, which involves a whole lot more than simply the environmental review of what goes on. We need to keep the people in our ministry, not only to do permitting and project review but also to address the issue of more public process. The kinds of things that come along with a new process might even expand the amount of work our people have to do. We're not sure exactly how that will work, but we do know that there will be a considerable amount of work left to do within the ministry.
D. Jarvis: If this integration does take place -- because it could happen that the bill doesn't pass, and we wouldn't be in this new process.... Very unlikely, but I assume that it's not going to speed up the process for an assessment program for future mines; we're going to see more delays. Are we looking at another year's process there? Have you given any thought to that, or has your department talked to you about that aspect of it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Again, I cannot discuss legislation that is currently before the House in that kind of detail. But I can say what we have said publicly and what I believe is a very general statement. We have listened to the input we got on the proposal for the environmental impact assessment procedure. It is said that it has taken too long. We have put time lines into the legislation, and I expect that those time lines will ensure that processes go ahead in a very timely way.
D. Jarvis: Did you, through the environmental hearings and everything...? How do the stakeholders feel about it? Have they talked to you at all? How do the Mining Association and the future mines feel about it?
Hon. A. Edwards: We briefed members of the mining industry today on the environmental impact assessment legislation. There were people there to answer all kinds of questions, so consultation went on and continues.
D. Jarvis: So I assume they're all happy.
In any event, I'm going to jump around a bit here, and I want to ask the minister about something she's probably more familiar with than anyone here in this room, seeing as it's the mainstay of her own riding: coal. All the mines in B.C. generated approximately $30 million in revenue. I think you mentioned it before, but I wonder if you could mention it once more: how much of that was attributed to coal?
Hon. A. Edwards: From the mineral tax, there was $12.7 million. There were a number of coal lease applications, which brought revenue of $2.2 million, and another approximately $200,000 from coal's portion of free miners' certificates and assessment receipts -- and various other fees.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister please advise us of the total amount of coal exports?
Hon. A. Edwards: If the member would like to wait a minute for that and has another question, we can dig that up for him.
D. Jarvis: What was the government's opinion of the Marshall report? Were they in favour of it, or how do they feel about it?
Hon. A. Edwards: If I can do a quick mental calculation here, 17 million tonnes of coal -- that includes both metallurgical and thermal coal -- was exported in 1992.
What did we think of the Marshall report? We used the Marshall report as a basis for setting up a coal strategy, which was begun. The Marshall report was an extremely useful document. It outlined what was going on in the industry in considerable detail. It suggested some directions that were very useful, and was the basis for a number of public meetings and activities that were set aside in the coal crisis in the Elk Valley, but which will again be the basis for the next moves that we're going to make on coal strategy in British Columbia.
There is no possible way that we can forget the importance of coal to the economy of British Columbia. I expect it will again be the largest mineral export and basically the mineral that is mined to the greatest extent.
D. Jarvis: The Marshall report was obviously circulated to all the stakeholders. Were they of the same opinion? Do they agree with the government's opinion of the Marshall report?
Hon. A. Edwards: There were a number of recommendations in the Marshall report, some of which we agreed with quite strongly and some of which we thought might and might not work. I believe the industry had a very similar response in tone. Some of the recommendations they strongly supported and some they didn't support; there were some they would like to talk about. They were different recommendations in some cases, but in general, there was a really extraordinary degree of agreement over what Mr. Marshall found in his study of the coal industry. The coal corporations, coal unions, coal communities and the government agreed that some of the directions were clearly good, and that if we worked together we could probably improve the future of the coal industry in British Columbia.
[ Page 7703 ]
D. Jarvis: I know what your opinion of the coal report is, but what aspects of the Marshall report does the government intend to implement?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the proposals that Mr. Marshall made in connection with value-added have already been followed up on. For example, we have completed a study on the possibility of a coking plant in British Columbia. His suggestions, as far as value-added is concerned, were very important. We agreed that industrial relations were a point of considerable delicacy and needed to be improved in British Columbia. That certainly has proven to be a matter of interest to both of us.
Both we and the industry -- and by the industry I mean the broad sense of the industry, not just the corporations themselves but the workers in the industry and communities where the industry operates -- are concerned about foreign subsidies and high rail costs, because there are some cross-subsidies for which coal seems to bear the weight. Those are matters of some concern that we would like to address.
D. Jarvis: Are there ongoing discussions at this point with respect to the interprovincial barriers?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly there has been extensive discussion between the western provinces and Ontario about the possibility of more coal moving from western Canada to Ontario, although they keeps having little pauses, if you want to put it that way. Nevertheless, British Columbia continues to sell low-sulphur coal to Ontario, and those amounts have been increasing over the past several months. As far as interprovincial trade is concerned, that is probably the only one that British Columbia would be able to consider. The other western provinces, our immediate neighbours, are producers themselves -- they're not buying our coal -- and so are the Maritime provinces. So the only market, obviously, is Ontario.
D. Jarvis: From what I understand, it is something like 25 percent or 30 percent cheaper to ship the coal through U.S. rail than it is to ship it Canadian. Therefore the east is essentially using dirty American coal rather than buying our own clean coal. Has the government given any consideration to a subsidy along that line to start moving our coal into the east, where there is a large market for it?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, one has to remember that the source of American coal for Ontario Hydro and the steel mills is approximately ten times closer to Ontario than British Columbia. So the major difference is the distance factor. You have a significantly greater distance to haul coal to Ontario from here than you do from Pennsylvania. That makes a huge difference. In the past, Ontario Hydro actually owned one or two coalmines in the U.S. from which it got its supply of coal. It no longer does that, so it's not as tied to that production, so that possibility for coal is reduced. Nevertheless, Ontarians are not as eager to have coal generation as they were before. Their demand has reduced, just as most of the demand for coal-generated electricity has.
Another problem that comes up, of course, is the different technology for making steel. The demand is not as great as it used to be. There are some things that are working for western Canadian coal and some that are militating against it. They seem to change over time, but basically we continue to keep an eye on it.
[8:45]
D. Jarvis: From what I understand, it's an environmental problem in the east. They don't want to use coal as much as before because of the acid rain, etc. Has the Ontario government not given any consideration to this, because it's the tax from the three provinces in between that is making the difference? Has our government and the Ontario government given any thought to getting together and getting some kind of subsidy to try and open up more of a market there?
Hon. A. Edwards: There is a problem with our technological argument. We are very proud of our low-sulphur coal. However, in order to meet the standards in Ontario -- I'm not sure if those are the current standards or the ones that are projected -- a generator would have to put scrubbers into their plant anyway, whether or not they had low-sulphur coal. Once they put scrubbers in, why not scrub away a lot of sulphur? They tell me that. So, unfortunately, we lose a bit on that argument for our low-sulphur coal. At one point we could have supplied them with coal and they wouldn't have had to have any scrubbers and they would have met the air standard. I believe that the situation is changing.
You talk about rail taxes. They do make a difference, but as I say, the major difference is the distance. If you're talking about a subsidy, I think you should talk to the federal government. The federal government is the one that puts on the most taxes, and it certainly is the one that engineers any cross-subsidization that occurs through its rulings. I think that we have addressed the issue. There are some concerns about rail taxation, but there are a number of aspects of selling coal to Ontario that need to be addressed. Nevertheless, in all of this, we have a number of coal mines that are selling coal to Ontario: to Ontario Hydro for thermal coal, and some metallurgical coal -- very little right now, I think -- for steel producers. As you know, the steel industry in Ontario is not as healthy as it once was.
D. Jarvis: What is the demand in the Far East for thermal coal?
Hon. A. Edwards: "Huge" and "growing" are the two words that we would put there. It was about a 7 percent per annum increase in demand for power in Korea, when we were there. About half of that will be met by nuclear generation and about half by coal generation. They are looking all over the world for thermal coal. Of course, the fact that there is about a $10 million oversupply on the market at any one time indicates that they should have no problem getting it. Nevertheless, the demand is there and it is growing.
[ Page 7704 ]
D. Jarvis: I notice in the paper this morning that several of the mining companies in the Elk Valley have received new contracts. Was the minister responsible for those new contracts, or did they get those -- from what I've been informed -- because they now have a more stable labour situation?
Hon. A. Edwards: Here is an issue on which I would love to fulminate, if I were invited. The whole issue of selling coal is a complex one, and certainly, if you are selling into the Asian market, your customers like to know that the government is a friendly one, and that it is working with the companies to ensure that the product is going to be there and that everything is going to go well. This government was the first -- in some cases for a decade -- to send a Mines minister over to Asia. In the case of Korea, it was the first time a Mines minister had visited there. We were very eager to be there to assure the governments of Japan and Korea that this government supports the coal industry, that in fact we want to ensure that they have the markets. We want to ensure that what happens in B.C. is going to contribute to their performance as good suppliers of coal. We believe that we have helped along what has happened, but there is no question that it is the companies themselves which do their marketing, and they are very aggressive marketers. We are very pleased that there are increases in contracts.
We have good coal in British Columbia. We have a skilled, well-trained labour force; a very stable labour force. They have worked for years to achieve our position in the world market. We believe that that will happen again. I hope that they will be up to the volumes they had before, and certainly to the level of fulfilment of their contracts that they have had over the years. The fact that their whole fiscal situation is stable will contribute to their ability to meet their contracts, the way that they sign those contracts.
I won't talk about any single mine right now, but there are a number of mines that are doing extremely well in meeting their goals. I will add that Quinsam mine on Vancouver Island is finding that its markets are increasing significantly. It is a very encouraging thing, and I think it is because of a cooperative approach by the industry and by government, which has included not just my visits, but the Premier's visits to Asia. Those have made a huge difference in the acceptability of Canadian coal producers.
D. Jarvis: I hope you appreciate that softball pitch that I gave you there. I just hope that you do not intend to tax them to death once it is all started.
Can you tell me what the domestic market is like for thermal and metallurgical coal? Is there one?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes. I wish I could say there is a large market domestically, but there is not. As I say, there is a limited market for thermal coal to Ontario Hydro for their coal generating plants. Some of those plants have used our coal for a number of years, or they sometimes use Alberta coal, which is similar. There could probably be an adjustment there.
As far as the steel industry is concerned, it has used a small amount of our metallurgical coal over recent years, but I think it's minimal. I know that our coal producers in the southeast ship some metallurgical coal into the U.S., but it's a small amount. We export mainly to Asia.
D. Jarvis: In 1991, I believe, 37 per cent of gross domestic product was coal exports. What was it in '92? Did it increase or decrease?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I'm going to have to ask the member to clarify the question, because we're not quite sure what....
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, 37 percent of the province's gross domestic product in '91 was coal exports, from what I understand. Maybe I'm wrong in that instance. But if that is correct, I want to know if the minister could tell me what it was in '92.
Hon. A. Edwards: The figure doesn't make sense to us. If the member wants to clarify the question, we could certainly find out what the percentage of the GDP our coal exports were in 1991 and 1992. But 37 per cent would not be the right figure. If you could clarify that, we could certainly find the figure, but right now this figure is far off what it would be.
D. Jarvis: Maybe it was a typing error; I'm not a very good typist. I don't have the figures with me to clarify whether I was right or wrong.
In any event, in regard to the use of coal for energy -- i.e., coal-fired cogeneration plants -- the Marshall report actually recommended that Hydro do a study on it. I just wonder if this has been considered. Did Hydro do a study, and what is your comment on that?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, as you know, probably the most recent statement on that has come from the B.C. Energy Council in their recommendations on export policy. They have said very clearly that they would identify coal as one of the sources, along with any other source of generation, that could be used for the export of electricity. As a government we have said that coal should have a level playing field. There's no reason in the world, under a social costing policy, that coal shouldn't be able to apply to be considered, as does any other source, for the generation of electricity.
D. Jarvis: There is a demand for thermal coal. What is being done with regard to the proposed demand for high volatile thermal coal with respect to electrical energy?
Hon. A. Edwards: All I can say, hon. Chair, is that we certainly encourage the sale of as much high-vol coal as possible, and some of it is used for thermal purposes.
[9:00]
D. Jarvis: Is there any movement in the Telkwa coalfields?
[ Page 7705 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: As I understand it, the company is interested in developing the project, and they have re-entered the process for getting approvals.
D. Jarvis: What promotion is being done, if any, for the use of coal as an alternative fuel?
Hon. A. Edwards: The point is, again, that coal will be considered along with any other source for the generation of electricity -- I assume you're talking about the generation of electricity -- and that coal has an opportunity just as much as solar power, wind power, natural gas or geothermal. Any project that uses those as a fuel has the same beginning point. They must go through a social costing policy, which we are currently developing; and they would have the opportunity to prove that this kind of generation could compete for projects with any other kind of generation.
D. Jarvis: At the present time, is there anything in your department with regard to promoting research and development in the coal market? A short while ago I read something about using radiation to clean up coal. In other words, they were going to zap it and get rid of the sulphite. Essentially it was microwave radiation of coal. Is there any research and development going on in that?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly the industry is doing some research, and definitely the universities are doing some research. We don't have a research budget in that sense. Occasionally we attempt to assist the universities or the industry where we can, but we don't have any budget for R and D. What we can do are things such as encouraging the coking study or the direct reduced iron study -- those kinds of things, which are very clearly connected to coal -- and we have helped get those done. Those are very practical feasibility, first-stage studies, but they're not pure research by any sense.
D. Jarvis: Have you discussed at all with the Minister of Finance some way of reducing the taxation on the coalmines -- some type of tax relief for them? I think that taxes alone just to Fording Coal are in excess of $2 million. I am a little worried, when you say that they have all of these new markets, that you are going to tax them to death. I feel that it should be the other way around, because they are in a bad state. Let's hope it changes soon, but the unemployment in the area -- as you know, in your riding alone -- is in the 30 percent-plus range. Have you discussed anything like that with the minister or made any recommendations to him?
Hon. A. Edwards: Taxing is always an interesting topic with the mining industry, and particularly with the coal industry.
I have had a number of discussions over the past several months, particularly with the Minister of Economic Development, who was questioned on specifics and is willing to say that he has been told that the full tax load on a mining company would not exceed about 3 percent. We say it may go as high as 5 percent of the gross product. In any sense, it is not going to be the crucial issue in a mine's operations. That is in no way to say that we don't want to ensure that there is a fair tax regime, and we are considering taxation. We have looked at taxes and the competitive position of British Columbia as far as taxing is concerned. We had a task force last year. The results of that task force are now with the Mining Association and with us. We are reviewing it. We believe it is important, and we continue to talk about it. I do talk about it frequently with the Minister of Finance, and we sometimes come to disagreement.
R. Neufeld: I want to get onto a different subject that is fairly topical today. But before that, taxation and taxation regimes.... We hear from the mining industry and from industry as a whole that the increase in taxation and costs that has been placed on all industries -- and yours specifically -- since your government came to office is probably one of the most significant reasons that the mining industry is having trouble continuing to operate.
We do have a lot of other high costs. Wages are a fairly high cost in the mining industry in British Columbia. This government is going to increase the charge for electricity 2 percent above the rate of inflation. That is mandated. It is a tremendous cost increase to an industry that is already having a lot of trouble. The minister has travelled around the world and knows full well the price of ore, what these mining companies are receiving for their product, whether it's coal, copper, lead-zinc -- whatever. To continue to increase taxation certainly has a tremendously negative effect on that industry. Usually the negative effect comes where they reduce jobs and they automate.
Where does that leave British Columbia? Where does that leave our workers? People who want to live here just want to make a living and raise their families. That's specifically what people tell me. I have said it many times in the House, and I will say it here again: as I go around the province -- it doesn't matter where I go -- people are concerned about jobs. They want jobs; they want to work. I just went through about 15 hours with the Minister of Social Services where that minister continued to talk about the creation of jobs, and that getting people off social assistance and into the workforce was needed to get their self-esteem up.
I agree with those thoughts, but when we continue to increase taxation -- the corporate capital tax -- and with the environmental reviews that have been put in place, and the unfriendliness of your government toward the mining industry specifically, especially with your decision today -- it certainly doesn't lead to continuing to have a mining industry in British Columbia, or to have those high-paying jobs that we need if we are going to continue the lifestyle we already have. The critic from the Liberal Party brings forward a valid point about the continuation of tax increases, of electrical rate increases and of fees of every type going, although I will concede that the government did reduce the taxation on roads -- which amounted to very little; I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but it's pretty insignificant -- and it's a step in the right direction. I guess it will help a certain amount.
[ Page 7706 ]
Other than just getting angry with the Minister of Finance, how does the minister deal in cabinet with all the other ministers and try to convince them that we cannot tax industry right out of the province of British Columbia? I can't see what we're going to live on. I mean, people cannot go into service-oriented jobs at a minimum wage and afford to support families. The Minister of Social Services continually said that throughout her estimates. It cannot go on; we can't have that. We need those high-paying jobs.
Is the Minister of Mines working hard with the Minister of Finance and others that are involved -- Mr. Bob Williams -- in creating tax regimes that will encourage industry back to British Columbia and encourage the mining industry that has gone to Chile and all the other places? Are there some programs in place to encourage those industries back into British Columbia, so that we can get the mining jobs back up to par? It's not indicative of what has taken place while you have been minister. Over the last ten years, I will say, the mining industry has been on a downhill run. We've lost an awful lot of jobs, even under a government that was continually -- and still is -- pointed at and told that it gave away too much to industry. The Social Credit government was always too much on the side of industry, and now we have a government that's on the other side -- it seems to be increasing costs to industry tremendously. What programs are in place, through your ministry, to encourage development back into British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: I would like to respond to some of the specifics the member put forward and also respond to his general questions. I might say from the beginning that I don't share many of the assumptions the member makes. I think that if we just assume we are on a level playing field, we will get through this discussion considerably better.
I note that the member suggests that taxes are high, although we have just gone through this and discussed the whole issue. I might mention that of the very few tax breaks in the budget, the only taxes that were fully rescinded this year were for this ministry. We took away the taxes on the notice-of-work and on mining roads. I'm sorry to have to say this, but with our fiscal situation -- with us addressing the deficit, which is a matter of significance to this government -- the only other reductions in taxes were in the corporate capital tax. Other than that, the two tax breaks we got were the only tax breaks.
He talks about wages and electrical rates, and suggests that there's going to be a mandated 2-percent-over-inflation increase in hydroelectric rates. That's not the case at all. The member misinterprets. There is a cap on; any increase in rates must not go more than 2 percent above the inflation rate. So that's quite a different thing.
[9:15]
More important, and probably more to the point, had the member been at the Mining Association celebration of Mining Week this year in British Columbia, with a rather extensive presentation by a number of companies about what their costs are in Chile, he would have found that both labour and electricity costs in Chile are greater than they are in British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: I doubt it. I would expect they're high....
Hon. A Edwards: If you doubt that, go and ask the companies. We have a very stable labour force that is trained and able to do things that other labour forces are not able to do. Therefore our labour force is a significant benefit to the industry in British Columbia. And our electricity rates, which are stable and competitive, are also a benefit to the industry.
It might be interesting to the member to know that Mr. Norman Keevil, who is a well-known miner in British Columbia, did a study of Highland Valley Copper. He said in his study that if Highland Valley Copper were it to be developed this year, it wouldn't be. In other words, if you took what Highland Valley did 20 years ago when it came into operation and moved that to this year, it would not be economical to bring it into production. An examination of those figures will show that nearly all of the difference in costs was in construction costs, not hydroelectricity costs at all.
You discussed what you perceived to be unfriendliness by this government to the mining industry, and I reject that interpretation out of hand. I would like to point out to the member that the ministry has been working very hard to follow up on the mineral strategy that was put forward. We are committed to setting up a broadly based advisory body on mining issues. The Premier has talked of this. We are committed to doing it. We expect that it might be formally established in the fall after some developmental work that is currently proceeding on the strategy so that we can establish this advisory board in the way that we jointly decide will be most useful in addressing the issues. I expect that within the very near future we will be able to issue a vision statement. The Mining Association of B.C. has worked with us on that, and they consider it important.
We are looking to do a lot of work toward increasing the profile of the mining industry among the public and talking more and more about mining's contribution to the economy and about the need for mining's product by all of the citizens of the world, particularly the citizens of B.C., because that's where our efforts are going to be. The key is to educate the public on the industry's profile and to support our position, which is that mining matters.
We are working to support these strategy items and in so doing we have reorganized our staff, as I said before. We are regionalizing our staff and also ensuring that we have the staff there to respond to the issues of the day, and most particularly and most noticeably, that we have the staff to respond to the land use planning that's going on in the province.
The industry has had the full support of this ministry in mine development certificates. Four full, new certificates were issued this year, and three more are with companies for signing. Depending on how you count them, we've gone through a number of others. Some of them are newer and more significant than
[ Page 7707 ]
others. What we are talking about here represents a new authorization for mining investments of about $560 million.
We have made sure that mineral values are very clearly represented and put forward in any decision-making done by the Commission on Resources and Environment, and we will do the same in the protected-areas strategy. As I say, we continue consultation on a number of pieces of legislation, but currently and most specifically the environmental assessment bill. That will take a continuous amount of work to ensure that we are sharing our views on that.
We have very clearly committed to making sure that we improve our response to industry on such things as the timing for assessment and certainty about where the boundaries are for land use, and certainly in responding to issues that the industry thinks are important, including the issue of public education. I would suggest that all that indicates very clearly that this government is not unfriendly to industry. This government is very clearly aware that it takes both a healthy economy and a healthy environment to make for the provincial public good. In doing that, we are doing our share with the mining industry.
R. Neufeld: What the minister says is interesting. If you have a good working relationship with the mining industry -- and I'm quite certain that there probably is, for goodness' sake.... It's going to have to be, because they have to keep on operating even though you are taxing them to death. You're putting regulations into place that they can't live with.
I beg to differ with the minister about the electricity rate. I was in this same room and I talked to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for B.C. Hydro, and he confirmed that that was 2 percent over inflation. That was a cap all right. That was going to be it: 2 percent over inflation. I didn't realize this, but the minister said that the labour and electrical rates are higher in Chile.
I apologize that I didn't get over to Mining Week. I guess I'm stretched a little thin with three ministries -- in fact, some people say I should get a little thinner. But I believe that our leader, Jack Weisgerber, was there and met with the mining industry. We have a good working relationship with the mining industry, so we've kept in contact with them. I don't know just exactly what they tell you about whether they're really happy or not, but the mining industry en masse tell us that they're quite unhappy with what your ministry is doing.
I would suggest that the decision that was made today over the Tatshenshini is certainly not one that is going to endear you to the mining industry. I can't believe it. In fact, when your government made the decision on Clayoquot Sound, our party -- and we've said it quite often -- supported that decision. I think that was a good decision. I think it was good for British Columbia. It was an integrated use. We've said, right from when the issue started to become hotter all the time, that there had to be some benefits to everyone: there had to be logging, there had to be parks, and there had to be preservation of ancient rain forest. I don't have any problem with that. I think that was a good decision.
We hoped that on the issue of the Tat, same good common sense would come around and deal with that issue in the same way. People have said that there are up to 2,000 jobs. Even if there are 1,000 good, high-paying jobs, that's better than what we have now. I don't know how many jobs there are; maybe the minister can tell me. How many jobs are produced in that area in the rafting industry right now? How many jobs are produced out of that area right now? We know that in British Columbia the number one thing that we need -- and it's confirmed by every minister I talk to in estimates -- is jobs, and we need well-paying jobs. That could have come about with integrated use in the Tatshenshini. But no, we declared it another park. It's another park in the northwestern part of British Columbia; it's a huge land mass. But where are we going to create the jobs? Does the minister know about another copper deposit in British Columbia which these mining companies can put into production, other than in those types of areas? You're always going to have mining -- from anything I've had to do with mining in the north -- in a sensitive area. So what are we going to do? How are we going to encourage mining in British Columbia if we continually turn them down?
Hon. A. Edwards: How are we going to encourage mining? We are going to encourage mining by continuing to give them the certainty they need about where the parks are going to be and where they're not going to be. Obviously, this decision about the Tatshenshini area has been hovering over this province for a considerable time. In fact, the Wilderness Advisory Committee identified the issue and the area in its study that was published in 1986. So this is not a new issue; it's a conflict that is clear. It was very clearly identified, and it was there. The report from Mr. Owen on this issue very clearly said that if the use of the area was to be for wilderness, that was not compatible with mining. We had to make the choice as to whether we were going to have this multiple use or preservation. That was the land use decision we made because of the extraordinary qualities of the area and the extraordinary biodiversity in the area, which is small in that sense. It is very small for that much diversity. In an area with so many rare and unusual fauna and flora, the decision was extremely difficult, but it was to preserve.
Since that was the decision the government wanted to make, it was important that the decision be communicated as quickly as possible, so that industry knows exactly where the lines are drawn and they have that degree of certainty. I think the decision was a good decision in the broad, global scale. It's a decision to preserve an area that will, together with the surrounding areas, make an extremely unusual, rare and valuable ecosystem preserved for the world. I think that that's important, and the government decided to do that.
As I say, these kinds of decisions, of course, are not going to be welcomed by the mining industry, which saw another value there. I think that's important. We have tried to be open and upfront and to make our decision as quickly as possible, stating what that decision was and what it will continue to be.
[ Page 7708 ]
Nevertheless, we continue to have a very rich mineral resource in British Columbia. I believe that the industry will continue to operate here, because we have, as I have said before, not only a rich resource but fiscal security, political stability, very extensive infrastructure and a skilled and valuable workforce. We have the expertise, and we have the technology. With all of those things put together, I believe that the mining industry will continue to survive in British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: I agree, we have a stable workforce -- I guess as stable as it can be while losing 11,000 jobs in ten years. We do have a good workforce in the mining industry, and if we continue to lose that workforce at the rate we have been, we're not going to have it too much longer.
[9:30]
I want to go a little bit further on the labour and electrical rates in Chile that the minister talked about. Could she expand a little more on that? I wasn't at the mining convention. What does she perceive to be the reason that the mining industry is moving to Chile en masse? Some mining firms have closed right up in Vancouver and left. But if everything costs more there, why are they going there? They do have a stable political system here -- as much as it can be under the NDP, but specifically in Canada as a whole. They would much rather invest here -- anyone would -- than in Chile. So what is the drawing card to Chile if it's not labour and electricity? I want to add, on labour, that I don't believe we should be paying Third World wages to our people. I think people should be paid a good wage so that they can make a good living. I don't have any problem with that at all.
Hon. A. Edwards: What we were told at the Mining Association meeting by those who are doing some mining in Chile is that the cost per tonne into the mill is significantly higher than it is here in British Columbia. As I said before, that is for both labour costs, electricity costs and a number of other costs -- all costs per tonne in are higher. It's just that the grades are so high that the cost per tonne out is enough to keep it on the global market and to keep it there in a healthy way. So to suggest that we can address it in that way is impossible.
R. Neufeld: That's interesting, because anything that I've read and been told on the Windy Craggy mine leads me to believe that that's a very high grade of ore -- world class. So why would we not encourage the development of that ore body, if that's what it takes to continue to have the mining industry in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly in comparison to other grades in B.C., it is at the top. It is probably as high a grade of copper ore as we have in British Columbia, and that's not a bad grade, but it doesn't compare with some of the grades that are taken out in Chile. So what I'm saying is that one of the significant points about why our mining companies have developed mines in Chile is that higher-grade ore.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and that's why I ask the question: why, then, would your government turn thumbs down on a world-class, high-grade mine in Windy Craggy and let the industry continue to go on down to Chile to find that high-grade ore? Or is the minister aware of some other place in British Columbia right now where the ore is as high a grade as it is in Windy Craggy or in Chile that these companies can go to?
Hon. A. Edwards: There are other opportunities in British Columbia, and certainly the fact that we have nearly $560 million in projects that are proposed right now indicates that there are a number of opportunities.
If you'll allow me to be facetious for a moment, I really wish that that ore body had chosen not only not to locate itself in the Haines triangle but also to put itself down near a good road where the labour force is readily available. That would have been much more helpful.
R. Neufeld: Well, it's hard to tell an acre what to do this many years later; we have to deal with it the way it's given to us. Most of the mining, especially in the north, is done by camps, and probably should be. I don't have any problem with that.
When you made your decision about not mining Windy Craggy, or turning it all into a park -- the Tatshenshini area, the Haines triangle.... It's some 2.5 million acres, I believe -- somewhere in that neighbourhood. Can the minister tell me what kind of revenue up until now, other than from the mining industry, that the province received? The only activity that I know of in that area is rafting. What kind of taxation did the province receive from that activity?
Hon. A. Edwards: Obviously, I can't respond to that, because I don't know what the taxation would be; it's not my ministry. The Ministry of Finance and maybe the Ministry of Tourism might know. But I would tell you that there was some rafting, and I believe there was one trapline and one guide-outfitter in the area.
R. Neufeld: Well, I think the dollar value -- not to the province but generated by the rafting industry, if I remember it correctly -- was around $1 million in gross revenue. I would bet that not very much out of that $1 million went to the province in any way, shape, or form.
The issue about mining and the rafting industry not being compatible was one of the large issues. The other issue was probably how Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton in the U.S. felt. We should be aware of what took place with the Alaska pipeline -- the country that that pipeline went through and the issues that were going on at the time: it would decimate the reindeer and all other wildlife; they just wouldn't be able to stand the noise from the compressor stations and it was going to be very detrimental to the wildlife. It is as compatible as can be. The wildlife lives around those compressor stations, and they make that their home.
We don't even have to go to Alaska; we find it in northern British Columbia. All the work that has gone on in northern British Columbia in the drilling and
[ Page 7709 ]
forest industries hasn't chased the wildlife out. There is a tremendous amount of it, and that's indicated by all the guide-outfitters we have up there. The guide-outfitters' industry is a major part of our industry. We have mining, forestry and guide-outfitters; we have beautiful landscapes and all kinds of places where you can go and raft. You can be out there all by yourself and never see another person for a long time.
But we create yet another 2.5-million-acre park, where we could have had some real economic benefit plus a park. They both could have worked together. There is no reason why they couldn't have worked together. The technology is available today in the mining industry to alleviate the problems of leakage and all the things that people were afraid would happen to the river. My goodness, we can fly to the moon and land people on it. You would think the least we could do in the mining industry would be able to look after the environment. I think the mining industry is as concerned about the environment as the minister is, or as I am. I think all the people in British Columbia are concerned. Are we now going to promote rafting on the rivers to try to get some revenue out of there? Does the minister have any idea who will be able access that park? There is no road in there, and access is tremendously expensive. Who is going to be able to afford to access that park?
Hon. A. Edwards: There was no decision made by this government to say that the mining industry cannot be environmentally responsible. The decision was a land use decision and it did not depend on us saying whether or not any mine -- the one that had the proposal there, or any other -- could operate in a responsible way. It was a land use decision that says if you want to preserve wilderness, you do not allow an extractive industry, because that will have an effect on the system. Basically the decision was based on what we are going to use the area for, and we said that this is one of the areas that will be protected as a class A park. It will be part of the 12 percent that will be protected.
As I understand it, the management of the area will be done by.... At least, we will propose -- because we are proposing that it be designated a heritage park by the United Nations -- that a management committee be set up by the United States, Canada and British Columbia, and that it be a joint management committee. Certainly the number of rafters on the river has been contained very severely so far, and there's no indication that it would be increased at all. One of the requirements of wilderness is that there be limited or restricted access. So obviously we're not looking to build a road into a wilderness. That sort of goes along with what we have decided.
I believe it's time to adjourn the debate, so I would be pleased to move that we adjourn debate. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 9:42 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]