1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 16, Number 9
[ Page 11755 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and welcome to the precincts 34 grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley. They are with their teacher, Mr. Luongo. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to welcome 60 students from Sardis Elementary School in the Chilliwack area. They are with Mr. Gil Knutson and several parents. Would the House make them most welcome.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Accountants (Management) Act
Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1994
Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1994
College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994
Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994
Skills Development and Fair Wage Act
Skills, Training and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1994
Public Education Labour Relations Act
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
PARENTING: AN HONOURABLE VOCATION AND AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE
D. Jarvis: I think we can all agree that making a child is a moral act to which is attached a lifelong moral commitment, not only to the health of the body and soul of that child but also to the health of the communities in which we all live. What can we do, both individually and collectively, to ensure that children get the time and attention they need from their parents, for their own sakes and for the sake of future generations, upon whom we will all rely? This is the basis of what I would like to pursue this morning.
All too often we hear about youth violence and crime. Youth become a family problem and/or a problem for society, draining our patience and our resources. As parents, we must take the brunt of this blame. These problems cannot be cured by simply saying, for example: "Change the Young Offenders Act."
For a moment, let us consider parenting as a growing franchise industry, with a solid foundation and with a potential for and a commitment to progressive, healthy growth. Let us say that society, therefore, can be seen as shareholders in companies, making investments with confidence and with the belief that the payoff will be greater right now and in the long term. The success of the companies will depend on that solid foundation upon which they were built. What will be the solid foundation of parenting, then, and what is society's role in this matter?
The key is quality time. The success of the family unit depends on consistent quality time -- one on one, and as a unit -- for many years. However, in our ever-changing and fast-paced society, time has become a limited commodity, and many of us simply do not have enough of these brief time slots to pay attention while we're on the run. We just do not have the extra time for that necessary bonding, and if we don't take it, it just won't happen. Family values are not being developed or nurtured, and children are increasingly left to develop on their own. Parents need to dedicate more of themselves, their time and their patience to their children. Parents know that and society knows that. So how can we make it happen?
How can we have more time for the children if we need to work full-time just to make ends meet? The time has come to revalue children, and for the community and government to support and recognize parents' efforts. The re-evaluation of the importance of children has some ramifications. Parents have to decide what is more important to them -- more income and career advancement, or better relationships with their children. Society and government have to recognize the value of quality parenting and make the choice less difficult for parents. Investing in children is an investment in our future, and this is an avenue which I believe needs to be seriously considered. If business had the incentive to make it easier for parents to earn a living and attend to their children, I believe they would gain a better-performing labour force. They would also contribute to the social health of the community.
The community that each and every one of us depends on requires consistent and positive quality parenting, which is the foundation for the bonding between a parent and a child as well as between people and society at large. Studies have shown that children who are left alone to care for themselves for more than 11 hours per week are twice as likely to be abusers of controlled substances than those who are actively cared for by adults. These children also score high in risk-taking activities, anger, stress and family conflict. For much of human history, the family exerted enormous influence upon our children's identities, beliefs and behaviour.
What, then, could be done to enable more parents to have a greater presence in the lives of their children? Actually, many employers and labour unions advocate work production from the employee's own home. Perhaps this will be one of the contributions of the new information highway. If both parents need to work and working at home is an impossibility, perhaps one parent could work part-time and receive a subsidy, if necessary. I don't quite believe in that, but it is done in some European countries. Perhaps arrangements can be made to work different hours in order to increase the all-important parental presence in the home.
It appears that the bonds of society are now less constrained by the connection with the family than at any time in the past. The whole community depends on good parenting, and good parenting depends on societal cooperation. Too much time, money and attention go into accommodating society's problems and not enough into curtailing the problems at the source -- that is, within the home. This is something that needs to be looked at, and we need a new formation within the government and the community at large.
[ Page 11756 ]
M. Lord: It's a pleasure to get up and respond to the comments by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour on parenting, which is a noble occupation. In fact, in my view, it's the most important occupation one can undertake. There's no doubt that parenting is becoming a more difficult task nowadays in this economy. Changing family profiles mean different household structures and situations that we need to deal with. We now have blended families in our society. We have parents living apart, with joint custody of children. We have common-law partnerships, many of whom have children, and we have same-sex relationships. The old concept of the traditional family, with father going out to earn a living and mother staying home with the children, is no longer predominant in British Columbia. In fact, it's interesting to note that fewer than one-sixth of families in British Columbia now conform to that traditional pattern.
[10:15]
I believe that economic forces have played a significant role in the emerging lack of ability to provide good parenting. I think that when people are worrying about where their next meal will come from or how they're going to be able to pay their rent, they're not concerned, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour mentioned, about more possessions or career advancement. We are talking about parents who, day by day, must both work in the workforce. Some people have more than one job, just to meet the economic constraints upon them. Given the limited growth of real family income since 1981 and the substantial increase in the number of single-parent families, most of whom are headed up by women, I see a continuing increase in the number of single parents and couples with children who will be spending a great deal of their waking time in the workforce.
I believe it's the responsibility of government to take initiatives to enhance that family atmosphere and to clear away some of those obstacles that get in the way of parents spending so-called quality time with their children. Our government has committed $100 million in pay equity programs for women working in the public sector, including increases for low-paid workers who work in government-funded agencies and social service agencies. We have established 5,000 new child care spaces across British Columbia and have recently committed $32.3 million to create a further 7,500 workplace child care places -- a total of 12,500 child care spaces -- so those children can spend quality time with adults in a stimulating atmosphere. We have increased day care subsidies to families who find day care unaffordable. In fact, 30,000 families across British Columbia now take advantage of day care subsidies so that they can put their children into these day care spaces.
We have introduced Bill 46, the Child, Family and Community Service Act -- now in committee -- which states clearly that a family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children, and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with parents. The act further states that if, with available support services, a family can provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services should be provided. Our government is recognizing in legislation the importance of the family and the obligation that we have as a society to assist parents in keeping their responsibilities to their children.
Hon. Speaker, children are our most valuable and precious resource. It's a resource that we must maintain, and it is a resource that it is absolutely imperative that we not squander.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate the comments of the member for Comox Valley, but what I am advocating and promoting is a new commitment to the family based on the traditional role of the family unit of generations gone by, while also taking into consideration the new pressures facing society today. Too many boughs are breaking, and breaking too soon, and we are all bearing the brunt. Concessions need to be made. The onus should not sit squarely on the shoulders of the parents. We all have a stake in this, and we all have a role to play. Raising children is a social task, a social responsibility, and it requires the support and the participation of more than just the parents. We need to implement more family-friendly public and workplace policies.
The message I want to share with you this morning is this: we cannot continually keep putting the cart before the horse, as we are doing in education, where we are all too consumed with administration and teachers, and we forget the students, in a lot of instances. More policing and new laws will not stop youth crime or youth violence. Young people whose connections to their families and to schooling have been severed are more likely to behave in deviant ways. The answer, my friends, will lay with us, and that means us as parents.
BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS: THE JUAN DE FUCA MARINE TRAIL
R. Kasper: In March of this year, the government, through the hon. Minister of Environment, established the Commonwealth Nature Legacy, which saw the acquisition of the Gowlland Range area, just west of Victoria, and Mount Finlayson and properties immediately adjacent to that area. It has been the largest acquisition of private property within an urban community in the province's history. Subsequently, there were additional acquisitions: the Glencoe Cove area of Saanich, and Panama Hill. All of those acquisitions and property negotiations were done in consultation with local government, the Capital Regional District and local municipalities, as well as with citizens' groups and organizations that have been lobbying for a number of years, working with government and private landholders, to see these areas protected.
Just this past Monday, we saw the announcement of a further extension of the Commonwealth Nature Legacy -- the acquisition and establishment of the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail park. That brought the total land acquisition value to some $35 million. I'd like to touch on the partnership that was developed in establishing that most recent acquisition. Local citizens from the Sooke-Port Renfrew-Jordan River area came to government with the idea of establishing a marine park trail that would be some 45 kilometres long. Those citizens worked with their local communities, the local business community, the Sooke-Jordan River Chamber of Commerce, the Sooke Economic Development Commission, representatives from the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, representatives from the YM-YWCA and other outdoor-enthusiast groups. Based on the large amount of public input, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks felt this was a worthwhile cause and something it should pursue.
But that acquisition would not have taken place if not for the goodwill and cooperation of private landowners such as Western Forest Products and TimberWest. Both of those companies made land donations in excess of 650 acres; the value of that land has been calculated at some $10 million. I have to commend Western Forest Products for their hard work and effort, and for working very cooperatively with the
[ Page 11757 ]
local community and with government in establishing this trail. The 500-some acres that Western Forest Products donated -- all waterfront, some 150 metres wide -- will allow government to implement what I and many in the environmental community view as a truly national proposal. It will draw tourists and additional economic development for the Sooke-Port Renfrew area, something that is needed to enhance jobs and employment opportunities in that area. It will assist economic development opportunities not only in that community but in the greater Victoria area. The representatives from Tourism Victoria and the Victoria Chamber of Commerce at the Monday announcement have applauded the government on this recent acquisition.
All of this would not have taken place if there wasn't a partnership, a working together, with community representatives like Al Jones, who chaired the ad hoc committee of local citizens who brought the idea forward to government, myself and the business interests in the Sooke area. People feel parks don't necessarily have an economic development aspect. But with this recent acquisition and, I hope, with future plans regarding this park, there will be a great many economic development opportunities.
I should also note the participation of TimberWest. Formerly the company had utilized some of these lands; we have situations where second growth is now established on some properties. They made a donation in excess of 150 acres of some prime waterfront area in the immediate Sooke-Port Renfrew community.
Partners are easy to talk about. But when partners can come together at a table and work on a proposal that has a common good and a common interest, it should be applauded. I encourage other corporate, community and public interests to strive on other ventures that, I feel, will have a long-lasting effect on British Columbia.
D. Symons: It's my pleasure indeed to respond to this, because I'm very pleased to hear that this government is continuing in the proud tradition of previous governments in making sure parks are preserved for all generations to come. This is an important thing that most parties have supported over the years in this province. We have built in the past a good network of parks, and we are continuing to do so. As our population grows, the importance of these parks becomes more and more apparent to everyone, I believe. So it's very good that this government is continuing in that fashion.
I believe that parks are very important to the people of British Columbia in order that we might realize what we were given in creation, giving the idea to people that we are really a part of this Earth and not simply here to utilize the Earth, as we sometimes do, in economic terms. I've gone camping for a good number of years before this life I've entered into that seems to eat up my spare time. We've done a fair amount of camping. Through going to both the marine parks and the public parks around the province, I think my children have gained some respect for the world we live in and the nature that surrounds us.
I think that's an important aspect of making sure also that parks are accessible to people. We have some parks in British Columbia that are fairly inaccessible, but this new park along the marine coast of Juan de Fuca will be fairly accessible. You can get to one end of it quite easily by car. It will make a great hiking trail, an extension of that marvellous trail along the west coast.
As a high school teacher, I didn't participate -- maybe not being rugged enough or not having time enough.... One of our teachers at school, for a good number of years, has taken sometimes in excess of 25 students along the West Coast nature trail. At this time of year, he'll be doing it in about a week from now. I have not seen one of the students who has come back from that program and not felt exhilarated by being in touch with nature along the West Coast Trail. This part along the Strait of Juan de Fuca will simply make that accessible to even more people. That's a great contribution to this province that this government has made.
[10:30]
I also appreciate very much, as mentioned by the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, the cooperation that went into this project. Indeed, having two forest companies donate close to one-third of the parkland and arranging through land swaps and other things to make available the rest of the land in order to have that continuous park along the west coast of Vancouver Island is a marvellous example to other businesses and governments of how, if we work cooperatively together, we can make something happen that really will be a legacy to the province of British Columbia.
I thank you for the opportunity to make this response to the statement and wish the government well in this parks program.
R. Kasper: I would like to comment and thank the hon. member for his remarks.
The partnership also included representatives from the Edward Milne Community School, which, in my view, has done an admirable job in their pursuits on behalf of the youth of our community; also, the Port Renfrew Community Association and representatives from the T'Sou-ke nation and the Pacheenaht nation, addressing issues and concerns in discussions with the aboriginal community.
I'd also like to point out that government has not only established a partnership with respect to this recent park announcement. I believe that government has shown its willingness to work with groups and organizations in efforts to establish the forest renewal plan, establishing a committee made up of representatives from the forest companies, labour, environmentalists, aboriginal people and communities within British Columbia to put together their ideas as to how we can restore our forests. I'd also like to point out that prior to the government tabling the Forest Practices Code, there was a great deal of discussion and dialogue with those same interest groups. To me, that also represents a partnership. Since our government was formed in 1991, the Premier has established the Premier's Summit -- which I hope will carry on -- where he brought in representatives from the business community, labour and the environmental side to discuss major issues affecting the people of British Columbia, and sought the views of groups and organizations such as the B.C. Business Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour, so that we can work together in solving the problems that affect British Columbians and make British Columbia a better place to create more employment opportunities, which will, in turn, help stimulate our economy.
In closing, I would like to say that I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. My only hope is that all members of this House can work together and perhaps take from some of that partnership we've seen outside this House and demonstrate the same partnership within this House.
L. Stephens: Before I begin my statement, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 11758 ]
L. Stephens: This morning when I was introducing Mr. Luongo and his Glenwood Elementary School students with their parents, I neglected to also introduce 35 grade 7 students from James Kennedy School, with their teacher Mr. McGowan and parents accompanying them. Would the House please make them welcome.
THE ECONOMY AND POVERTY -- WOMEN'S ISSUES
L. Stephens: The statement I have this morning is "The Economy and Poverty -- Women's Issues." Equality for women in this province is the ability to choose, and I believe that British Columbians deserve to be able to make choices free of both social and economic barriers. Yet women, when it comes to making those choices, lose out economically nearly every time. Women in this province need to know and feel that they do have income security beyond the safety net of welfare. It is wrong to sentence the women of this province to higher rates of poverty, lower incomes and fewer choices because of their gender. The present situation does just that, and it is robbing British Columbia of its true potential. This fact will not change until women are able to make strong choices and attain the levels of achievement that they choose.
Single mothers clearly bear the brunt of economic discrimination. In 1991, 58 percent of single-parent women were poor. In British Columbia, women earned 66.8 cents for every dollar their male co-worker earned. That's 5 percent below the national average. The truth of these statistics is that women are facing poverty in this nation and especially in this province. The members of this House need to realize that over half of all low-income Canadians are women and that that fact is disgraceful. In our communities, young single mothers quickly fall behind economically, and they rarely catch up. The talent and potential of these young women is being lost because of poverty, and for these women the choices aren't there. The current system has no encouragement for them to strive for and achieve independent income security. It leaves them in a situation where it does not pay to be off welfare, and this is indeed a sentence for poverty.
One would assume that education would make a difference to the economic choices and success of women in our province, yet a man working part-time with a grade 8 education earned approximately $21,000. A woman with a university degree working part-time earned only $18,000. Statistics also show that a man with a grade 8 education earned more working full-time than a woman with a high school diploma working full-time. Surprisingly, women with university degrees earned 74 percent of what university-educated men earned in 1992. So let's get this straight: women working part-time earn less than men working part-time, and women with degrees earn less than men with degrees. A woman in British Columbia faces tough economic choices when even her education is valued beneath that of the man.
Poverty is not simply a monetary situation. Poverty impacts negatively upon health and emotional well-being. If women are more likely to be poor, that means they are more likely to have poor housing, poor health and poor self-esteem. The women of this province deserve more. They deserve laws which enforce spousal responsibility and laws which go further to protect their personal safety. Equality is about choice, and choice for women is dependent on having the economic freedom to pursue their goals and potential. Therefore creating an economy which gives women the flexibility to choose between jobs and allows private companies and the public sector the economic opportunity to provide policies of flextime and job-sharing should be the aim of government in this province.
A strong economy free of needless, obtrusive policies is the answer to the tough economic disadvantages women face. Poverty may never be eradicated, but by moving beyond state-controlled child care to issues such as advocating free markets, implementing lower tax burdens and having fewer intrusive regulations, women would benefit economically. They know this. By acknowledging differences, recognizing barriers and respecting choices, we have the opportunity to promote true gender equality. Women in this province should never be one man away from welfare.
When women were asked what they worry most about, they answered: jobs and the economy. Poverty for women in this province is very real, and they realize this. It's our job to allow them to make the choices that they need.
J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member for Langley for choosing this as her topic. I agree with most of what she has said. I think we all know that women are poorer than men. When women are poor, children are poor, and when women and children are poor, then we really have to ask ourselves what kind of society we are creating.
The hon. member for Langley mentioned one particular group of women, and that is single-parent families headed by women. We could, of course, also talk about visible-minority women and disabled women, who don't have access to the kind of employment they need to be self-sufficient; we can talk about older women who live in poverty because they didn't have pension plans through their working life that ensure a quality of life. Sometimes, though, if we just categorize and stereotype groups of women, then we end up responding to the situation rather than to the women involved.
The reality is that women, like men, move from one category to another throughout their lives. And it is very true: the issue is that every step of the way, women are at a disadvantage, albeit different disadvantages. Although I certainly agree that we must focus on women in poverty, we need to be cautious that we don't isolate it as a women's issue. It is a social issue, and there are a lot of people who live in poverty.
I don't want to add too much to the number of statistics that the hon. member has mentioned, but just by way of broadening it.... It's also a way of putting forward some of the actions that have happened in the last two years -- actions taken by the Minister of Women's Equality, actions taken by the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour and the Minister of Finance. It's only by working together across all of these ministerial lines that we can deal with poverty as it affects everyone, not only women.
The number of women in the paid workforce has increased substantially in the last 15 years, and the greatest increase has been women with children under three. That has almost doubled in the last 15 years, from 32 percent to 62 percent. I appreciate what the hon. member has said about child care spaces. The hon. member from Comox mentioned earlier the 5,000 new child care spaces that have been created in the last two years and the 7,500 that are still being planned. But they need to be flexible child care spaces if women are going to be able to make use of them to get out of that poverty cycle. By flexible spaces, we mean spaces for special needs kids, spaces to respect cultural diversity and
[ Page 11759 ]
spaces families can afford to pay for so they can get out into the workforce.
The hon. member mentioned that women account for the majority of part-time employment. That's true. I already mentioned that many women don't have pension plans. But we also know that many part-time workers don't receive benefits, and that does affect their broader quality of life -- beyond the fact that they also get paid much less. That's why it was very important that we increased the minimum wage, which benefited 75,000 workers in this province, most of whom were women. That's why it's important that we move forward quickly with the review of the employment standards legislation, to ensure that issues -- many of which affect women disproportionately to men -- are addressed. That's why it's important to continue to work to give greater economic security to women through the B.C. pension plan and to ensure that more women can benefit from that plan.
[10:45]
The hon. member for Langley spoke about women earning less than men. I guess where I differ is that her solution perhaps is to build a stronger economy with less intrusion from government. Well, when we look at what's happened to the discrepancy between men's and women's wages over the past ten or 20 years, it hasn't changed an awful lot; we might have gained a few percentage points. That says to me that the solution isn't more of the same. Many previous governments, provincially and federally, have tried age-old economic solutions. They haven't worked for women and won't work for women.
What will work are some of the things that have been done thus far. In the last couple of years, 250,000 employees in the public sector have benefited from pay equity provisions.
L. Stephens: I want to thank the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for her reply and her helpful, interesting comments. One I would like to reflect on is that I don't believe categorizing and labelling women is helpful. Poverty and the economy affect all women -- young women, old women, poor women, visible minorities, the disabled and so on. Every group is affected by these two factors.
I believe the attitudes are what have to change -- the attitudes of how we view women's value and their place in our society and economy. Before those change, the struggles we have with political intervention and political policies aren't going to be as helpful as some members perhaps think they are. Providing those economic choices for women is the fundamental issue in gender equality. Women understand this. I believe if a woman had true choice, she would never choose to be on welfare instead of economically independent. We have to change those attitudes I spoke about earlier to help make that happen.
Here are some quick facts that members may be interested in. Of women working outside the home, 66 percent have children under 6 years of age. In 1991, 58 percent of single-parent women were poor. Women represent 51 percent of the paid workforce in British Columbia; they are concentrated in the service sector, which statistically means low wages and long hours. Almost 80 percent of families in Canada choose arrangements other than formal child care, and 46 percent have their children cared for by family members. Single-parent families spend nearly three times as much of their annual income on child care as do two-parent families.
By any objective measure, the well-being of women is more dependent on economic growth and a strong economy than on taxpayer-funded programs for child care or parental leave. Women's advocates should support free and competitive markets; reform of the tax system; and expanding choices and opportunities for women's education and training, which I believe is the key. Like it or not, money is what makes our world go around, and removing the barriers to the many women struggling to climb out of poverty must be supported by all members of our society, and particularly members of this House.
Hon. B. Barlee: I ask leave to make an introduction in the House.
Leave granted.
Hon. B. Barlee: Seated behind me is an individual I have not seen for many years -- in fact, probably 20. Dr. Ray Parkinson is the ex-MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. He hasn't been back in the House for about 25 years. Welcome back, Dr. Parkinson.
Would you please give him a warm welcome.
U. Dosanjh: Before I start speaking on languages in British Columbia, I want to add my welcome to Dr. Parkinson. I remember introducing him at the Sikh temple on Second Avenue in Vancouver-Burrard in 1969 as a candidate in the election. I was privileged to be present at that time.
LANGUAGES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
U. Dosanjh: Today I want to speak about languages in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to speak at a forum organized by the Chinese Language Education Advancement Coalition of British Columbia on May 29 of this year. Many distinguished individuals spoke at that meeting: Dr. Jan Walls, director of the David Lam Centre for International Communications; Mr. Randy Enomoto, executive director of the Japanese Canadian Citizens Association; Mr. Milton Wong, chairman of the Laurier Institute; Mrs. Maggie Ip and Jenny Kwan, councillors in the city of Vancouver; and many others. I was pleasantly surprised to find many bits and pieces of information that I had either not thought about or not known. It is important to remember that at present the majority of our immigrants in British Columbia -- about 76 percent -- come from Pacific Rim countries. On the following weekend, I was also able to attend a heritage languages conference organized by the Heritage Language Association of British Columbia. Also, several months ago, I spoke at a meeting organized by the British Columbia Association for Punjabi Language Education. The thrust of all these meetings was that we need to review our language policy in British Columbia so that we can move with the times and bring our language instruction in line with the changing face and needs of British Columbia.
We know that we have a diversity of cultures in our population and that the importance of Asian languages is very prevalent and is evident right across the spectrum of society. If you look at that part of the world, Asia is home to at least half the world's population. About two-fifths of the world's population speaks either Mandarin or Cantonese and also Indian languages such as Hindi and Punjabi. We have populations in British Columbia whose origins are in those countries and in that part of the world. We have gone through a history of immigration to British Columbia from the Asia-Pacific and India. We have witnessed Chinese-Canadians settling in British Columbia, starting somewhere in the late 1850s, working in the Nanaimo coalfields, constructing the Grand Trunk road to Hope, building the
[ Page 11760 ]
CPR to New Westminster and fighting for Canada in World War II. In spite of all the hard work done by Chinese-Canadians during those years and later on, they faced many difficulties, including the now despised Chinese head tax on immigrants from China.
Indo-Canadians also have a similar history of struggles for equality and justice. We have witnessed in the last several decades incidents such as Komagata Maru. A significant portion of our population is of Japanese origin. They have faced similar struggles for justice and equality, including the mistreatment they received at the hands of our government during the Second World War.
These three populations are present in significant numbers in Canada, particularly in British Columbia. The 1991 census reported that the third most-spoken language in homes across Canada was Chinese, following English and French, in that order. Italian was fourth, and some languages of the Indian subcontinent -- which are obviously Canadian languages now, because Canadians speak them at home -- followed in significant numbers. There are presently at least 10,000 students in schools in British Columbia taking Chinese, Mandarin, Cantonese and Japanese; and there are many more, either in schools or in temples, taking Punjabi and Hindi as well as other languages of the Indian subcontinent.
I want to quote from Dr. Saywell, chair of the Asia Pacific Foundation, who was a speaker at the May 29 meeting I spoke about. I quote from some notes that he kindly faxed to me at my request:
"The contrast with the economies of North America and western Europe is striking. In 1960, the economies of eastern Asia, including Japan, represented 4 percent of world GNP, while the United States, Canada and Mexico, or NAFTA, represented 37 percent. Today the two regions are virtually equal, at 23 to 24 percent. But during the balance of this decade, half to two-thirds of global growth is predicted to be in Asia. Thus this region will move substantially ahead of NAFTA economies in terms of percentage of world GNP."
The Chair: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired for this segment.
The hon. member for Langley responds.
L. Stephens: The subject that the member for Vancouver-Kensington has chosen this morning is a very opportune one. I too have been attending some of the forums that the Chinese Language Education Advancement Coalition of British Columbia has been holding around the lower mainland. Last Friday I attended a public forum put on by the Civic Education Society at the Canadian-Chinese centre in Richmond. They too are concerned about the university's decision not to allow other languages to be calculated in the GPA for admission purposes along with the languages that are presently provincially examinable, and have been lobbying the Minister of Education and the Premier to bring that into our schools. As the member knows, the ministry is currently conducting a review of their examination policy to determine whether or not high school courses should have provincial examinations to allow for that calculation in the GPA for university entrance.
I also agree with the member that in our multicultural society today we have to acknowledge that there are some policies that have to change. We have to make those changes, not only in our education system but, as we've talked about in this House before, in other areas of our daily lives. There are many arguments both for and against those provincial examinations. British Columbia trades more with the Pacific Rim countries than does any other province in Canada, and British Columbia would like to increase those trading activities. I was very interested to hear the statistic given by the member that Chinese is the third-most-spoken language in Canada. That was a surprise to me, frankly. I didn't realize that Chinese was spoken as widely as it is. I think that gives even more strength to the argument that we need to look at changing the policies for foreign languages in our schools.
[11:00]
In the education system in the province, I was surprised to see that there are four areas that provide Japanese and Mandarin Chinese: Richmond, with almost 1,200 students; Burnaby, with about 850; Saanich, with around 520; and Langley, with 425 students. I was surprised to see that statistic as well. There are a lot of areas that we need to address for languages; I think perhaps we should do it through the school system, and I would encourage the member's efforts in that regard.
U. Dosanjh: I want to thank the member for her remarks, and I want to make essentially the same point. However, let me first say, not to correct the member but to shed a different light on this issue, that I do not consider these languages to be foreign languages anymore. These languages are spoken in the homes and businesses of Canadians who form a significant part of the population in British Columbia. I'm certain that the member would agree with me that they are no longer foreign languages. They are Canadian languages spoken by Canadians; they may have originated elsewhere, just as some other languages have.
I want to conclude by basically saying that I urge our government to review the policy -- and I understand that it's being reviewed -- and to expand the list of examinable languages in British Columbia to include languages such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Punjabi and Hindi perhaps. It's quite evident that we trade with the Pacific Rim: 40 percent of British Columbia's trade is presently with the Pacific Rim, and it's going to increase in the next decade or two. However, there is one thing that Dr. Saywell said that also points towards India and the importance of Indian languages. First he says: "The centre of the region's fastest growth today and probably over the balance of the decade is China and what is now commonly referred to as greater China" -- that's the People's Republic, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Then he says: "The international impact of changes in India will be very significant in the next decade indeed." There is, if I might add, a middle class of over 230 million Indians currently flourishing in India, and the Indian economy is expanding. I am suggesting that along with Mandarin, Cantonese and Japanese, Punjabi and Hindi ought to be included in that expanded list. Obviously it would be left to the schools to teach those languages wherever there is significant demand for those languages. However, we ought to make it convenient to have examinations in those languages provincially.
We ought to tap into the global IQ, as someone put it; let me just give credit for that phrase to a friend, Dr. In-Sing Leung, who used it at the May 29 meeting. We have in British Columbia a huge global IQ. We ought to use that linguistic IQ and cultural IQ. We should tap into it for our advantage -- for the advantage of British Columbia -- to expand our trade and to expand ourselves.
Hon. G. Clark: To begin with, I call the summary of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.
[ Page 11761 ]
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
J. Weisgerber: We had a number of interesting discussions in estimate debates with the Minister of Finance.
One of the more frustrating parts of the estimates for me was in our continued attempts to get details on the government's statements regarding the so-called illegal contractors working for government. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been on record as saying a number of contracts with employees had to be changed because of rulings from Revenue Canada. I've been trying for some time, both in correspondence and later in estimates debates, to get some indication of what that ruling from Revenue Canada was. As I learned from correspondence and indeed confirmed in estimates debates, there was no such ruling from Revenue Canada. Revenue Canada has never said to the provincial government that any group of people working for the government under contract was in violation of any law or regulation on any blanket basis; indeed, they dealt only with individual cases.
We went on to discuss at some length the difficulty of collecting provincial social services tax, particularly in communities like Dawson Creek, the Kootenays and other areas along the Alberta-B.C. border. But I believe these same kinds of problems exist in our border concerns with the state of Washington as well. It is a real concern for communities that have to compete with businesses in Alberta, when there is no effective mechanism for collecting sales tax on goods purchased by British Columbia residents in Alberta and brought back into this province. Particularly frustrating areas for residents in my own constituency and community are building products, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, truck campers, a whole host of appliances and furniture, for which retailers in British Columbia are seriously disadvantaged because of the sales tax difference.
We also had an opportunity to talk about the government's efforts to control tobacco smuggling. I again want to commend the minister for the efforts her government has made in controlling cigarette smuggling. We talked at some length about the difficulties of controlling the sale of tobacco on reserves and how one goes about controlling that.
We also had interesting discussions around debt, the biggest problem facing this province today. Debt has been doubled by this government in only three years -- more debt in three years in this province than in the 120 years leading up to the election of the current government.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
F. Gingell: Finance estimates is always an interesting time for me; it's an opportunity to canvass many issues. It always surprises me, though, particularly when the estimates are held in Committee Room A, that there seem to be more bureaucrats in attendance than members. I would have thought that members from all sides of the House would welcome the opportunity to question the minister on these issues. I think the only government member who questioned the minister was the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. The member for Peace River South had been questioning the minister on the issue of the number of people that smoked and the number of cigarettes they were able to purchase, but the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale came in smoking. I'm glad I am not the official in FICOM who is about to get a message.
What did we discuss? To start with, we discussed the issues surrounding the Matkin commission report. The minister has committed that she will bring out a comprehensive statement before any action is taken, and allow one last opportunity for the various stakeholders and interested parties to make submissions to her. Matkin is an important subject -- or the Vancouver Stock Exchange is. We should proceed slowly, but we should proceed. It should move along; it shouldn't be left any longer than it needs to. I believe that every day that goes by there are investors out there who are subject to unnecessary risks that changes could well get rid of.
We discussed the government's use of derivatives in trying to deal with the risks associated with currencies and interest rates. I would take this opportunity to again add the cautions I made at that time that you need to know what you are doing. I was assured that the government does, but it does need to be watched on a daily basis with clear policies established. Every day the newspapers are full of stories of things gone wrong in various banks and corporate organizations.
We discussed the anticipated changes in the investment practices of our province: the change in the rules to allow equity investments in many of the trust funds, and to move away from the old criteria established under federal law that restrict the common equity stocks in which life insurance companies and trust companies can invest to those of a prudent investor -- a prudent investor, indeed! I am sure the minister will recognize the need to ensure that policies and practices are ever vigilant to ensure that it is only a pretty prudent, prudent investor.
We discussed many of the issues brought up by Korbin and PSERC. Because of time, I will leave those issues. They are, of course, all recorded in Hansard. We discussed pensions and the mysteries of extrapolated values -- mysteries, indeed! It is important for MLAs to understand many of these issues, because the decisions that we make in relation to changes to provincially funded pension funds can have very great consequences in the future.
We discussed the problems of long-term sick leave and the extremely high rates of...
Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member to please wrap up. His time has expired, but I will give him just a moment.
F. Gingell: Wrap up is a good term.
...long-term disability, and the commitment that the government is working with the BCGEU.
I would just finish, hon. Speaker, then. One mustn't hear the political....
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I have given you about a minute extra, and I simply can't allow any more than that.
Hon. E. Cull: I want to confirm what the two critics have said. I think we had a very good discussion around the Ministry of Finance estimates this year. I want to compliment the critics for the work they did, because I think they came in and asked good questions. They challenged my staff, and certainly me, to be able to provide all of the information about the Ministry of Finance. I think we had a thorough canvass and a very good debate.
There are two issues I want to address before concluding my wrap-up. One is the issue raised by the Leader of the Third Party with respect to the contractor issue. We talked a lot about this issue. The member said in his concluding
[ Page 11762 ]
remarks that he still felt he did not have what he was looking for in terms of clear information with respect to why we had to act on the contractors. I have to say, again for the record, that what we have seen, and what Judi Korbin identified very clearly in her report, was a practice of the previous government to move employees from the accountable records of FTEs -- full-time equivalents -- into what we call the shadow bureaucracy, because contractors were not counted. The former government was able to publicly say that they had reduced the number of employees and to take credit for downsizing the public service, when all they had done was move them from the public service into this shadowy area of contracted services.
[11:15]
There are many cases where contracting services is the right thing to do -- when those services are unique and time-limited, and when they're the kinds of skills or expertise that you would not normally expect to have in the bureaucracy or at the level where it's needed. But we had far too many cases where contractors had only one contract with a ministry. They came in and worked 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in a government office, at a government desk, using a government computer, with a government telephone. They may have even had government credit cards. By any definition of the word, they were employees. In a series of correspondence with the government, Revenue Canada raised questions as to the status of these people and pointed out that in those circumstances I just described, they were not contractors under the terms of Revenue Canada, and that they should have been paying taxes on a different basis than they were doing.
I think that's important, and not only because of the legalities of Revenue Canada. That's one thing, and the Leader of the Third Party has made that the focus of his debate. I think we have to talk about the fairness to our own employees, because in some cases -- and it varied depending on the nature of the job -- we had contracted employees who were being paid less than the person sitting at the next desk who was a public service employee and doing exactly the same work.
That contracted employee was being paid less, but the government was paying more, because we were paying an agency which employed their services more money than we would pay if we hired the person as a public employee. This particularly happened in the area of clerical services, where women, mostly, would be hired from the temporary agencies on anything but a temporary basis. It's not fair when you have two people who are doing the same work, maybe in the same office, being paid different amounts.
In other cases, we had the flip side happen a lot with our professionals, where the contractors were being paid significantly more than the employees in our office. Not only was that costing us more as a government, and was, I think, a total waste of our tax dollars, it again created some real inequities. I think if we're going to develop a professional public service, which is certainly something I stand for, we have to get rid of the phony contracting and make sure that contracting is legitimate.
The opposition critic mentioned Matkin, and I totally agree with him. This issue is critical to the economic health of our province. We want to have a well-respected, functioning stock exchange. It plays a very important role in investment in British Columbia, and it has had a terrible reputation as a result of a number of things that have happened over the last few years. The former Minister of Finance appointed Jim Matkin to do an inquiry. The inquiry was completed this January.
While there has been some suggestion that we have not moved quickly enough in implementing it, I have to repeat what I said in the estimates: the financial community is split on the recommendations. It's interesting that they are not just vaguely split, but passionately in favour of it or opposed to it. I have been working, as I indicated I would since receiving the Matkin report, to sit down with those groups and try to work our way, calmly and rationally, through the recommendations. I will say to the member that we are making progress, because as we talk to the opposing views, we are finding more and more common ground. I expect that it won't be much longer before we will be able to make a complete and full announcement on the Matkin report.
The ministry has had a lot on its plate over the last year besides Matkin. We've also been establishing the Public Sector Employers' Council, which is significantly changing the way public sector labour relations are conducted in this province. As minister, I have also assumed responsibility for B.C. Lottery Corporation. Again, with the gaming review, this is a very significant responsibility. But the major thing we are doing at the Ministry of Finance revolves around our annual budget.
When we formed the government in 1991, we inherited a fiscal mess. We have made tremendous strides over the last three years to address this mess. We've brought the deficit down $1.5 billion; we have frozen taxes; we are leading Canada in job creation. The latest report, which just came out today, shows that 30,000 of the 56,000 jobs that were created in Canada last month were created in B.C. Of the jobs created in this country last year, 100,000 were here in B.C. We have the strongest economy in the country and the best in North America. It has been confirmed by our credit ratings, and it is no accident that this is happening. It's happening because of the dedication of British Columbians -- the businesses and everyday, ordinary people who work to make our economy strong. But it is also happening because we have made getting our fiscal house in order one of our top four priorities.
In closing, I'd like to say that we have brought the deficit down, we have a good debt management plan and we will balance the budget by 1996. My final words, as I wrap up, are to thank the staff at the Ministry of Finance. I think all of the opposition members will agree that they are professional and highly competent. They do an excellent job on behalf of the people of this province.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479 (continued).
V. Anderson: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, but in this case multiculturalism, immigration and human rights. This is the first opportunity the minister has had in these estimates to present the area of multiculturalism, immigration and human rights to the House, so I'm wondering if there may be a statement the minister wants to make at the beginning as to
[ Page 11763 ]
new thrusts and policy in that area. I know he has a keen interest in these areas because, as I understood, it was his request that he be given the opportunity to undertake these responsibilities. May I ask if the minister has an opening statement he wants to make?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your courtesy, hon. member. I did comment on the number of priority areas the other day when we started estimates, but there are a number of challenges in this portfolio. First, I think there are some administrative issues that we have to deal with within the ministry. Second, there are issues we have to face from a public policy point of view to make multiculturalism more relevant to the people of British Columbia. All too often, as I make my way through the province, many people put forward the argument that this is an area where government ought not to be expending funds. I don't agree with that, and I know you don't agree with that, hon. member. I know that you, as much as I, take the view that the policies, programs and concept of multiculturalism are something we ought to be encouraging in society. I suspect that the bulk of our time will be spent on your sense that inadequate funding is provided, and I'm going to tell you straight up that in my view that is the case. We need to take a look at the resources we put into this area of the portfolio to make sure that we achieve the goal of relevancy, which I spoke to earlier on.
So, in a broad way, I think those are the issues and concerns that I have. There's a real need to make sure that government interacts and connects properly with multicultural communities in the province. I think there is, as is always the case, a very clear need on the part of government to demonstrate that it is on the side of the visible minority communities of British Columbia. It's also important that the government convey that multiculturalism is a notion that is not restricted to those who are members of visible minorities, but goes throughout every element of the population as we try to develop a society in which we encourage the heritage, background, tradition, customs and language that we bring to this wonderful province of ours.
As the estimates have demonstrated, a lot of my time to date has been focused on the environmental side of the portfolio. As we come nearer to making determinations with regard to the Vancouver Island CORE process and complete the legislative agenda, which has been heavy on the Environment side, you can anticipate that from my side there will start to be significant developments on the multicultural side. I'm sure we can pursue some of those during the course of estimates.
I've enjoyed working with you in the past, and I look forward to working with you in the hours that remain in this estimate as we deal with issues that I know we both feel strongly about.
V. Anderson: I realize the minister has been in office for eight months now as minister for multiculturalism, immigration and human rights. You mentioned, both the other day and again today, that a great deal of the focus has been on organizing and administrative reorganizing within the ministry. Could you comment on the nature of that organization? What's the purpose? What new focuses are coming out of that reorganization of the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member. I think, to perhaps put it into the appropriate context, the first step that any minister takes when they take over a portfolio is assess whether or not the administrative structure is capable of delivering the intentions of government. Accordingly, I commissioned a number of studies that took a look at the structure of the ministry. I'm in receipt of those, and generally they take the view that the structures are fairly solid. That's encouraging. They recommend some changes. For example, I believe one of the studies recommended that we look at elevating the profile of the ministry through an ADM, which we don't have now. That's provided by an executive director. I'm sure it gave staff all sorts of expectations about promotions and all that kind of stuff. That may be in the offing; I don't know. That's an issue I have to deal with.
Here's what I really think is the gist of it. There need to be cross-linkages between this portfolio and other ministries. From my observations in the time that I've had the privilege to serve in public office, those linkages have to be at all levels of the system. I have not been of the mind that the appropriate linkages are there at some levels. I want to make sure that those linkages are there. Of course, you're going to ask me what those linkages are, so let me anticipate that question by giving you some examples.
There are significant needs to have very powerful linkages between Education and Multiculturalism, because there is a significant role to be played in terms of our education system and the values that we ascribe to young people. That's a linkage that I think has to be there. On a more practical day-to-day basis, linkages between health policy and Multiculturalism are very important in terms of the impact that the Health ministry has on day-to-day activities of individuals. I'm always struck by the number of seniors and others who comment about the need to make sure that their lifestyles and views are incorporated into health policy.
[11:30]
The third example -- one which I'm always reluctant to talk about, because I think it suggests a quality that is neither necessary nor desirable -- is in the area of the Attorney General's ministry. Some of the relationships there are in terms of better understandings between the elements and activities of that ministry and cultural values.
A fourth example is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the need to ensure that municipal government, which often is the first agency of government, is very sensitive to matters relating to multiculturalism.
The fifth example is the relationship that we have around broad equality issues with the Ministry of Women's Equality. It is a ministry that plays an imperative role in society with regard to qualities among all of us -- not only with an eye to issues involving women but also, as I know is the case, with an eye to making sure that the principles of equality are looked at from a significantly broader perspective. And that occurs.
Those are five examples of areas where I think work needs to be done on linkages at the government level. There are others. A very common one I get from people in the multicultural field is the percentage of representation of visible minorities within the structure of government. That's a legitimate concern, in my mind. But often people don't think about the linkage between the work that my ministry does and, for example, the work that the Ministry of Finance does. That's another example of an area that we have to focus on.
As you can see, to answer your question, it seemed to me that there was a need for appropriate linkages within the system of government in a more, let's say, horizontal way than was the case in the past. In terms of policy determinations the imprint of the ministry is there in a variety of ministries, and I am sure that you wouldn't disagree with me. This is one of the attributes of a more
[ Page 11764 ]
horizontal ministry as opposed to a more vertical one, which is the case with Labour, which is the other portfolio I have served in. For those who are involved in analyzing public administration, I think they would conclude that in the area of multiculturalism there is quite a case study to be had in terms of the administration and implementation of policy horizontally throughout government.
I think that gives you some of the in-depth thoughts in that regard. I haven't had the opportunity to review Hansard in the past, but I would be surprised if you had not raised those kinds of matters in the past. They are appropriate concerns. They are reflective of where the communities are at, and they are also indicative of the challenge that awaits any government -- certainly ours as we try to make sure that these philosophies are better intertwined into the development of policies of government.
V. Anderson: The linkages within government are very important. As the former Minister of Education was the minister of multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, is there a particular reason why...? You mentioned the connection with Education, and that was a good relationship between Education and this ministry. Is there a reason it was moved out of Education into another ministry, rather than maintaining the linkage which would seem to be automatic and which was working quite well previously?
Hon. M. Sihota: First, those were determinations made by the Premier, not determinations made by myself. Second, one can make the same argument in all six portfolios that I referred to, other than Education. Third, it inevitably leads you to the view that perhaps in the long run the best conclusion is to move towards a stand-alone ministry. I am not making an announcement; I am not saying that that's where we're headed as a government. In fact, I haven't had those kinds of discussions. But in the openness of debate, we must be candid with one another and admit that there is a range of possibilities, and none of them ought to be excluded.
In terms of the experience that I have had in public office, my observation is that it really doesn't matter where it's situated as much as what happens where it has landed and how you proceed with the implementation of policies and programs, the funding that you provide, and the vision, leadership and direction that you provide. That is far more important than getting caught up in debate over why it's vested in a particular portfolio and not in another.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: In the gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Charlie Donaldson and family. They are from Saskatchewan and Calgary, enjoying the Victoria weather and our Legislature. Would the House make them most welcome.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the response from the minister. I agree that in the final analysis it isn't what ministry it's in; it's how hard the minister responsible works at it and what happens in the community at large.
Following up on the linkages for the moment, could the minister indicate...? It is my understanding that some interdepartment multicultural committees have been established. Could the minister indicate to me the status of multicultural committees at this point -- how many there are and their functions?
Hon. M. Sihota: As you point out, there is one major committee within government, chaired by the chair of Multiculturalism British Columbia, which meets the ministries monthly and reports their results to levels of government through their executives. Apart from that, there is a separate committee that deals with matters related to Crown corporations.
V. Anderson: In the Multiculturalism Act that was passed last year, one of the significant new ventures was that each ministry would report annually to the government on their multicultural programs, processes, accomplishments and failures, and their hopes for the future. Could you indicate what has happened as a result of that act?
Hon. M. Sihota: The reports are coming in. They were obliged to be in by May 31. They enumerate developments within various ministries and what they have been able to do. I want the hon. member to know that I will make those reports public so he has a full understanding of the deficiencies and gains in the ministries.
R. Chisholm: I guess my knowledge of this ministry is a little lacking. Does this ministry have any responsibility for attracting immigrant businesses and that type of thing? I've been approached on a number of occasions by various agricultural organizations around the world about bringing in businesses. I'm just wondering if there is any responsibility for this ministry to help them jump through the hoops, if you will, and go through all the regulations that we put in place. For instance, Taiwan Sugar Corp. is the latest one that I have been trying to help. I'm wondering if there is any way the ministry can help organizations that are moving to this country to help to develop our economy and their own businesses in the process.
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to your question, hon. member, is yes, we do. The business immigration program and the entrepreneur programs are vested in this ministry. I would have thought you'd have known that. If there are any particulars with regard to any groups that are interested, all you have to do is forward them to the business immigration branch of the ministry, and we will follow that up from there.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. You did foresee my question about whether those reports would be available, and I appreciate that very much.
I want to come back for a moment to your initial comment about the focus in the ministry and its concern for visible minorities. It is my experience in my community that we are all "visible minorities" now. That is part of the confusion that has come to our community. We need to recognize the reality that there is no majority group anymore in Canada -- if there ever was at one point, more than there is now. It appeared that there was a majority group. It comes as a surprise to people in B.C. -- as the former Minister of Education pointed out, among others who have raised a similar question -- that apart from the aboriginal people, the majority language in British Columbia at one point before the turn of the century was French, not English at all.
From the very beginning of British Columbia, we've had a strong multicultural community from many parts of the world. It's interesting to read B.C. history and discover that in the early days of British Columbia, it was the English who were the latest and, in many ways, the minority group in this
[ Page 11765 ]
part of the world. A good deal of the trade in those early days was through Hawaii as well as through the United States.
We do need to look at a new meaning for multiculturalism in our present circumstance. I'm wondering what studies the minister is doing, perhaps in cooperation with the federal Ministry of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, looking at a new awareness of the breadth and depth of multiculturalism. That basic philosophy sets forth and underlines the principles from which policy and programs come. So it seems to me that there's been a shift in the nature of multiculturalism from what it was ten years ago.
[11:45]
I'm wondering how the ministry is picking up on that shift and putting forth the realization that we are all visible minorities. As was discussed earlier in a private member's statement, since the third language spoken in the homes of British Columbia is Chinese, that is -- unofficially, if not officially -- one of the major languages that Canadians speak. When we're speaking about Canadians, the reality is that they speak many languages. So they are all languages that Canadians speak and are therefore Canadian in that sense, because these are the languages, customs, and cultures that Canadians use.
I'm wondering if there is a focus in your ministry on tying multiculturalism into citizenship, reflecting the real nature of citizenship in this country.
Hon. M. Sihota: You can't be in this field and not have that discussion. Those consultations and dialogues are occurring all the time. I'm not inclined to fund studies so much as I'm inclined to see those kinds of discussions through to some conclusions. I know that the federal government.... You referred to the federal Ministry of Multiculturalism. That doesn't exist anymore; now it's called Canadian Heritage. In my mind, there's a legitimate argument to be made that perhaps we should take the broader notion that you referred to and promote what we now know as multiculturalism, in that broader generic sense, in terms of preserving and promoting the heritage that all of us, regardless of skin colour, bring to Canada. It's a legitimate and valid point, a result of the evolution of thinking as we go through how these programs developed and were interpreted at the outset and how they need to be amended over time. So it's a reflection of thinking in society; and yes, that is occurring within the ministry as well.
I've also had the opportunity to talk to the federal Minister of Citizenship about these types of issues. The Minister of Heritage and I have met. I'm not too sure if we talked about this in much detail, because he is also, ironically enough, responsible for parks. Just reaching into my memory, I can't remember to what degree we've had those discussions.
Thirdly, as you know, these obligations of citizenship are founded within our own Multiculturalism Act. They're valid concerns and considerations, and you're correct to note that it's a dialogue that should occur. It is occurring, and needs to come to some conclusion.
V. Anderson: I raise this because what I hear in the community is a feeling that there has been a shift in ministry programming. That is reflected in funding and in what is being sponsored in the community. It's not necessarily a disagreement but an uncertainty about where the ministry is going and what the focus is in multiculturalism in trying to support individual cultural groups and intercultural interaction -- the kind of focus the ministry has as a basic principle upon which they can rely and to which they can respond.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. member, cross-cultural awareness and anti-racism have always been strong themes within the funding basis, for the reasons you just outlined -- i.e., the need to make sure that there is a broader inclusion and understanding of the values that we in the ministry are trying to promote. Those have always been the under-currents.
Some people are going to receive funding and others are not, because that's just the way it is. There is only so much money, and there are a lot of people asking for it. They ought not to read tea leaves into the decisions to fund or not, except for those broad parameters that I have talked about. Sensitivity and increasing awareness and understanding are critical components in terms of us making those determinations. But that's always been there, so I'm not sure that the shift is as radical or as unique as some would think.
V. Anderson: One of the specifics, if you like, in that area dealing with funding grants and support is the focus, on the one hand, of supporting individual ethnic groups to develop their own particular programs and their own particular reality -- and those ethnic groups vary considerably in size and strength in their own right -- as opposed to supporting interrelationships or intercultural activities, rather than specific ethnic cultures in their own right.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's the latter that we encourage.
V. Anderson: If I understand him right, the minister is encouraging intercultural interaction rather than specific ethnic cultural development. Is it the intercultural area that the minister is encouraging? Thank you very much.
Let me pick up on the minister's comment about education. How much interaction is there with the educational system in supporting education? In particular, it brings to mind a report prepared by an educational group from the different school systems. They had a focus in which there was limited money for ESL, and they hoped that there would be much more ESL support within the school system. What kind of focus is available in that area? There was also a focus on what was not there, because within the school system they are dealing with a lot of the settlement and interaction, and the social problems that families and children have; yet there is no funding or support available to them from the provincial government -- any real way for the settlement of social concerns over and above the ESL concerns.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure what you're.... I didn't quite catch your question; maybe you could just repeat it. I caught what you were saying -- it's not that, it's just the specific question.
V. Anderson: The letter accompanying the report from the British Columbia Lower Mainland Consortium of School Boards for Successful Settlement says:
"We are in agreement that schools must provide not only language training but also reception, translation and social support services, if immigrant children are to integrate successfully into the Canadian fabric. While we receive provincial funding for English language training, school districts receive no direct funding for settlement services."
In their recommendations, they indicate that "settlement services must be understood to include not only language training but also reception services and social support for inclusion and integration and the federal and provincial governments should establish a structured process of consultation and collaboration with school boards and
[ Page 11766 ]
immigrant services agencies" in order to get the settlement services which go beyond just the language services.
Hon. M. Sihota: You're correct: schools do not get the settlement funds directly. We provide them to third-party agencies, non-profit groups. Schools, of course, are not deemed to be non-profit organizations, so they don't receive the funding. However, that's not to say that they can't get the services. They can get the services through the work they do, as they should, in outreaching with community groups and having community groups meet with them to engage in contracts or assistance in providing for those needs.
I don't know if you're arguing that we should put this in as a component of the education budget. I'm not sure if that's the advice you're giving us as a member of the House. I don't know if you're saying that we ought not to fund these groups, but rather, that we should put the money directly into the schools, which would be a shift in terms of the approach. If that is your suggestion, I would have some concerns.
V. Anderson: I'm not suggesting one approach over another at the moment. I'm suggesting that when you're reviewing the multicultural program, there could be more interaction between the school system and the community groups as to the relationship of these services. I'm very aware that the services we have for children at the moment in the area of multiculturalism.... One of the realities I continually hear about from the community is that children are learning to interrelate with other cultures, but the parents are not, because they're not in that framework. What we are doing is separating the children's culture from that of the parents and causing a tension between children and parents that is very fundamental and real in families. It seems fundamental to me that children and parents should be the first focus in our multicultural programs so that we do not create the tensions we are creating at the moment.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I agree, and that's exactly what the ministry is doing. We're dealing with precisely those issues. We are putting together a conference. We're pulling people together to make sure that those institutional structures and concerns are dealt with, that those kinds of tensions are remedied and that there is a linkage, on a lifelong continuum basis, between what children experience in school and what parents experience at home. That's exactly the train we're on, hon. member.
F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: Two friends of mine from Quesnel are in the gallery. I call them friends because I've known them for some time. They are very active in the Canadian Union of Public Employees in the city of Quesnel. Neil Muir and Leanne Dawson are attending the CUPE convention in Victoria. I would like the House to make them welcome.
V. Anderson: In the area of community and race relations, could you tell us what's happening in the ministry's program at this point, particularly about anti-racism? This is what many people are concerned about at this particular moment.
Hon. P. Priddy: I, of course, would not be able to speak nearly as.... And I have done this with the permission of the minister....
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: If the minister says nearly as eloquently as he might about these issues, he would be incorrect. But I do want to share one story that responds to the member's question. It is about a program in Surrey that the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, along with the Ministry of Women's Equality and the local school districts, has put some resources into -- so it is Education and Multiculturalism, as well as our ministry. It is in a high school where probably over 50 percent of the students are South Asian. There is no question that there have been issues of racism and violence, for a variety of reasons, in that community -- certainly not all about racism. This particular project, which is a model project for the province, teaches grade 11 and 12 students conflict resolution skills to solve problems in non-violent ways. That in itself has been done in other places, but these students, along with their supervisors, then go out to all of the local elementary schools that feed into that high school and work with younger students. What we're doing -- and this addresses racism in how it works, very much so -- is creating a whole, safer community not just in one school or with one group of students, but with an entire community, around the issues of racism and solving problems in non-violent ways. So I wanted to be able to share that.
V. Anderson: One of the realities that also came out of the Surrey school system was the development of the curriculum on world religions by Sid Bentley, who was in the Surrey school system at that time. This was supported by the government. It is an alternative school program in many parts of the province, and out of that interaction has come an awareness of different religious and cultural backgrounds, which is extremely important.
[12:00]
I will have to at least mention the question of the Legion and the turban issue, because the community at large would expect me to raise it. I think we need to have it on the record from the multiculturalism committee, because like you we are concerned that this situation is there and has not been resolved. There will be ongoing discussion about this in the future, and it's not something that I think we want to be radical about; but it's an issue that is out in the public, and therefore it has to be dealt with. As people are dealing with this, it will come back, I'm sure, to this ministry more than to any other. I just wanted to raise that so as not to neglect it when dealing with this ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member is aware of what I had to say in this House the other day. I read in today's paper that Ted Chorny, who is the zone chair of the Royal Canadian Legion for the southern Vancouver Island area, emphasized the fact -- and I'm aware of this in any event, but I think it bears repeating -- that the Legions on southern Vancouver Island certainly have no difficulty with individuals wearing their religious headgear, for lack of a better word, when they attend functions at the Legions. I want to go on record as commending Mr. Chorny and the Legion for taking that view. I think that all too often we make reference to situations which cause us discomfort, but we don't take the opportunity to applaud those who have shown vision, leadership and commitment. The majority of Canadians applaud the kind of acceptance and openness exhibited by Mr. Chorny's comments in today's newspaper. I'm sure all members of the House agree with me, in light of our motion the other day, that we need to applaud the
[ Page 11767 ]
Legions in greater Victoria for the kind of approach they have taken.
It's not as if this isn't a problem or an issue. You're correct, hon. member, in noting that it is. As I've said in the past, it's been for me personally both troubling and very much a sad occasion to witness what transpired in Calgary. I would think those who were involved in that decision are reflecting on the decisions they've made. I know that many of the national organizations involving members of the Jewish and Sikh faiths are also assessing their options.
My views on this matter are well known; I stated them in the House the other day. Certainly, being one who believes in the faith that as a result of the Legion decision has been subject to comment, I want again to emphasize my view that we need to be more proactive in making sure there is broader acceptance of the kinds of principles that allow us to make accommodations for people of the Sikh and Jewish faiths. I'm very proud of my religion and of the values and principles I was taught to believe in by my family.
Over time, people of both the Sikh and Jewish faiths have been actively involved in the development of our society -- as Canadians. They played their role as Canadians first and have practised their faith in a way that responds to their own individual needs. We're fortunate to live in a country as embracing of different religions as our nation is, a country that in a very open way encourages the development and promotion of those faiths. I see nothing in the Legion decisions which would result in a change of that view on the part of most Canadians.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments and remarks. As the minister is aware, I worked in interfaith work for 11 years as the coordinator of what was Canadian Ecumenical Action and is now Multifaith Action. I worked cooperatively with all of the faith groups. And we all grew, because that is part of the nature of Canada. It's one of the areas that.... When we talk about multiculturalism, we also have to be very much aware that it's a multifaith country in which we live and that culture is in large part dependent upon the faith people have. Culture comes out of faith rather than the reverse, faith out of culture. We have to be very much aware of that.
One of the comments I want to make, though, with respect to the actions of the Legion, is that there's a concern on my part that there are two groups in the Legion itself. There are those who were veterans and those who have joined the Legion as associate members. I'm not sure if it's the associate members or the veterans who are now really making their will known in many of the places.
I would like for the moment to move to another part of the ministry, and that's to the immigration policy of the ministry and the discussions going on in immigration policy between the ministry and the federal government, in relation to immigration policy and programs that affect us here in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Sihota: I had the occasion to meet with Mr. Marchi, the federal Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, who is a very decent, delightful chap. In my view, he has an excellent grasp of immigration issues. I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with Mr. Marchi, who I think is not only capable but a very passionate defender of the immigration system in Canada. Mr. Marchi would agree, I think, that we both agreed to work together and support one another on the things we believe in, and there's a high degree of overlap.
I raised the need for us to engage in a final determination on an immigration agreement for British Columbia, and I expressed my anxiety and my view that these issues have been going on for much too long and need to be resolved. They were part of the constitutional discussions that I had the privilege of being involved in. On June 27, 1994, there will be a consultation process with the federal government in Vancouver, which we will be a part of. So we're making some progress. We both agreed that we need to make faster progress to conclude these matters. I would be surprised if next year during estimates we were talking about the possibility of an agreement as opposed to having a discussion about the agreement.
V. Anderson: One of the areas that comes up, partly with businesses, is immigrants who come into the country and have qualifications for professional work from their country of origin -- there are many areas: education, medicine, law. What is the process for enabling immigrants who come with qualifications to use those qualifications and bring their real contributions into our country? I think of a medical doctor, a woman, and the only job she was able to get was work in a garment factory in downtown Vancouver. It seems to me to be a great waste of skills. What programs and policies enable those professionals to get recognition and equivalency, if you like, from our institutions?
Hon. M. Sihota: This is an issue that I get approached about on a regular basis -- as obviously you do, which is why it's before us today. I agree that this is something that we have to resolve. I note that Alberta concluded a study about a year ago and developed a system. We are examining their system to see if we can streamline processes to give us the kinds of results that many of us would like to see. There is unfairness. Someone may go to dentistry school in Indonesia for four years and find themselves coming to Canada but not be able to be a dentist because of non-acceptance. I'm just using that as an example. I don't know how true that is, but I get those kinds of examples put forward to me every day as I make my way through multicultural communities. I agree with you. We are involved in the recognition of foreign credentials and work experience so we can achieve some of these goals.
I understand that the Open Learning Agency, with the sponsorship of Skills, Training and Labour, is actively pursuing the prospect of establishing an international credential evaluation service in British Columbia. I certainly support that initiative.
V. Anderson: I realize that it's a difficulty. I have a person who doesn't have a problem with Immigration but is a medical doctor who wants to do a specialty and isn't allowed to do the specialty because there aren't open quotas even in the province, much less coming in as an immigrant. So there's that issue as well.
In the business immigration program, could the minister indicate how many people are coming in? As I understand it, there are three programs: entrepreneurial, investor, and self-employed. Could you give us the various strengths of those programs at this particular time? While you're looking that up, I'll raise a concern that's been in the newspaper recently that these programs have been fraudulent, to put one word to it, or have not been successful. Could the minister comment on how the programs administered from British Columbia are working out in that regard?
[ Page 11768 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get you the numbers in a second. Let me just say a couple of things.
First, I take issue with those who think that this is a program we ought not to be encouraging; I think we should encourage it, and I feel that very strongly. I think it's a program that could bring about all sorts of success and economic development in the province. Second, I want to say that we should always be guarding against those who seek to try to abuse a program, and we have to take some action whenever that happens. Third, we in British Columbia have had a high degree of success with regard to that program. I want to make that abundantly clear. Its success ought not to be tampered with by those kinds of articles. Where there hasn't been success, we have an obligation to make sure we have appropriate legislative instruments in place to deal with that. We're working on that. I'd hoped to introduce something this session; it will not happen this session, but I'm quite confident that we should be in a position next session to deal with that concern. We have to do a better job of promoting the successes of those programs, and they have to fit in with overall government policy. For example -- and this is now being vested in my ministry -- we certainly could be using the opportunities available under that program to encourage more investment in green industries, which is a burgeoning growth area in our economy.
In 1992 there were 3,793 applications for the entrepreneur program, 469 for the self-employed category, and 4,304 with regard to the investor program. The total immigration to British Columbia was 35,458.
V. Anderson: In looking at the programs, is there equal concern about which program should be encouraged and sponsored more within the province? Is there one that appears to be producing better results than the others, and if so, in the mind of the minister, which would be the most effective of those programs?
[12:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question because I was engaging in dialogue with the government Whip.
I'm not going to get into a debate about saying one program is better than the other. I don't think that's the way we look at it. These are compatible and complementary programs. They're not programs that compete with one another; they deal with different needs and provide opportunities for those who look at it from a particular perspective. Hence that's just not the way I look at them. Both programs have their strengths. Yes, there are areas within any program where we've got concern, but generally speaking they're good programs and worthy of support.
V. Anderson: I want to ask a question about the human rights part of your program. I understand that Bill Black is conducting a study about changes in the human rights legislation. Are there particular concerns in that area that have led to the need for the review which is now being undertaken?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not a bad question, but I'm not too sure I'm going to give you a good answer. It's part of the 48-point plan that we as a government articulated; we said that we would be proceeding with this review. It's true that there have been some amendments to it.
I will tell you why I said what I said at the beginning. I am reluctant to speak about areas where I think there needs to be legislative change, because someone will interpret that as giving direction or providing a bias to those who are engaged in the work. I have enough respect for Professor Black and his skills to allow him to proceed without that kind of public commentary. I have avoided that in the past, and I don't really see a need to comment on it now. That's why I said it's not a bad question but you're not getting a good answer.
V. Anderson: It's a fair enough answer; I'm not complaining. Perhaps you might give some indication of the suggested timetable for that completion. Will the results be made public?
Hon. M. Sihota: It is my recollection -- and I stand to be corrected -- that it was the end of June.
When will it be made public? I guess it will be made public when we decide it will be made public. I can't tell you when that's going to be, because I haven't seen the report. This all reminds me of the Labour Code. When I got the Labour Code report in, the opposition kept asking when I was going to make it public, because they thought there was some great secrets in it. There never were, but that didn't stop you guys from asking when. There probably won't be any great secrets in this one, but there will be all sorts of rumours that will probably encourage you folks in the opposition to ask me when I'm going to release it. I will tell you right now and I will tell you then: I will release when I'm ready to release it.
V. Anderson: I have a question from the financial side, since we are in estimates. It has to deal, theoretically at least, with the budget. I notice that you have decreased $75,000 in the area of multiculturalism and immigration and $31,000 in the area of human rights. Do you want to comment on...? Your earlier statement was on the need for an increase in funds, but in actuality the budget has a decrease in funds in both of those areas.
Hon. M. Sihota: All budgets were impacted by the decisions made by the Ministry of Finance, and so were these. That happens in this business, and it should happen. I'm surprised you're asking the question. In fact, you, your leader and others in your party have argued that the cuts made in the budget did not go far enough. One of the things that has concerned members of the multicultural community is that should their be, God forbid, a Liberal government in British Columbia, there would be deep and unbearable cuts in multiculturalism. Your party has made it very clear that we are not bringing the deficit down fast enough, not dealing with the debt fast enough, and that there needs to be more cuts. It frightens me, hon. member, to think that there would be a day in British Columbia when we would see a right-wing administration led by a Liberal Party that would slash and burn these very vital programs.
V. Anderson: I just have to reply to the minister that I realize he can't resist. I almost got through the estimates dealing with him on the issues rather than the sub-issues. I am disappointed he had to go off...but I understand from where he comes, and I can understand that he would be afraid that after the next election he may not be in charge of multiculturalism and immigration.
I will let my colleague pick up from here.
M. de Jong: I wonder if I could ask the minister to return to an issue we debated several days ago regarding wearing turbans in the Legion. I want to say that I listened to what all hon. members, and the minister in particular, had to say.
[ Page 11769 ]
More importantly -- and I say this quite candidly -- I was quite impressed with what the minister had to say and what the media reported he said. He said that he did not believe the way to approach these sorts of issues was to use the heavy hand of government to try and berate organizations into taking a path that we think is proper. I think when one looks at an issue such as this, that is probably the proper approach. Nonetheless, there are people suggesting that in like circumstances, the government might bring pressure to bear on organizations that we deem, for other purposes, to be private. Using the Legion experience as an example, I'd like to ask the minister if there are circumstances in which he can see his ministry employing pressure. The minister mentioned a couple, in terms of licensing applications and tax-exempt status, and dismissed them. He has dismissed them in this particular case, and rightly so. Is that a mechanism that he believes his ministry has jurisdiction to exercise in like circumstances?
Hon. M. Sihota: In the identical circumstance, I don't even have the ability to lift a liquor licence. I expressed my views in that regard. Where I think there is a need, I'm not hesitant to place pressure on groups. Pressure comes in different forms. Sometimes it's just a phone call from a minister, sometimes it's having people come into my office, sometimes it's a discussion with officials and sometimes it's encouraging community groups to express opinions. A galaxy of options is available in terms of putting pressure on people. My view is that we have to prevent these kinds of things from occurring in the first place, and that's where the focus is on my part.
M. de Jong: The minister may or may not be aware of a situation that developed in the Abbotsford School District about a year and a half ago. Sikh Indo-Canadian children were separated on their first day at kindergarten into a separate class, on the assumption that, because they had Indo-Canadian names, their ability and command of the English language was somehow not up to the standards of Caucasian children. That gave rise to all sorts of difficulties.
The minister indicated earlier the linkage he saw existing between his ministry and the need to educate. That certainly is the key here. These are probably questions more properly addressed to the Minister of Education. But can he indicate to me -- in that sort of a framework -- what programs or linkages exist in the ministry now that might be enhanced or improved to combat those sorts of situations, which just cause tremendous grief for all concerned?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I recall that situation in Abbotsford. As a young person I grew up in Lake Cowichan -- I was born in Duncan -- and couldn't speak English until I went to kindergarten. So I remember thinking at the time that what happened could have happened to me. You're right, but the situation was unique and to a large measure managed properly -- and managed properly in part because my ministry played a role in mediating that matter. We make ourselves available as a ministry to mediate in similar matters. Municipalities, school boards and others that find themselves dealing with some of these situations are welcome to contact the ministry, and we will attend to dealing with the issues in that fashion.
M. de Jong: One of the reports.... I appreciate, by the way, that the minister came to this portfolio fairly recently. That is obviously the case for me as well. I had an opportunity, though, to meet with members of the Jewish community and review the report they tabled for 1993-94. Some of the recommendations included in that report have a broader application. One of those recommendations is that the ministry monitor the use of the Human Rights Act to determine its effectiveness in combating hate literature and hate activities. Implicit in that suggestion from the Canadian Jewish Congress, I presume, is some degree of concern or perhaps dissatisfaction. Can the minister give some indication whether his ministry has attempted to respond to that concern? What efforts are being undertaken along those lines?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for your question. The ministry, through the human rights branch, is always monitoring what is occurring. In that sense, the answer is yes.
I want to make a point. The hon. member, in his preface to the question, referred to the report on hate literature and hate propaganda. He also referred to the fact that he, like I -- in his case, as a recently elected member of the Legislature, more so -- is new to some of these issues. I know the hon. member was not a member of the Legislature last session. I appreciate the hon. member raising concerns about hate literature and hate propaganda, because I feel very strongly that there is no place in British Columbia for them. I think one need only talk to victims, those who are the recipients of the hate in that literature, and those who, like myself, are members of a particular skin-colour group that those who propagate hate often point to. Considering the impact and the scar -- sometimes the anger and the frustration -- that are left with people when they are ridiculed, there is no place in B.C., to my mind, for that kind of literature.
[12:30]
I don't wish, therefore, to be critical of the hon. member who raised this issue. But speaking in a generic way, last session this government introduced Bill 33 with the intent of preventing the dissemination of that kind of information in communities throughout British Columbia. Regrettably, there was a volatile debate in this House. I say regrettable not because I don't think there's a place for debate between freedom of speech and the need to protect against that kind of literature, which I say crosses the parameters of appropriate freedom of speech, but regrettable in the sense that in the volatility of that debate, people started to overlook the impact on the victims of that information.
The hon. member's party voted against Bill 33. It voted against legislation which said there was no place in British Columbia for hate propaganda and that kind of literature. I know some of the members on the other side of the House, particularly the member for Vancouver-Langara, and I've watched and listened to what certain members have had to say. We bring different political philosophies to this House. The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara has a sincere commitment to human rights; at least, that's been my observation. I think in many ways it's been much of his life work before he arrived in this chamber.
I think the Liberal Party of British Columbia will live to regret that they voted against legislation that prohibited the dissemination of hate propaganda throughout communities in British Columbia. I'm still at a loss to understand why that party, swept up in some of the rhetoric of the day, lost sight of some very basic principles in terms of respecting the worth and the dignity of human beings. It's tragic.
With that said, and with the time being what it is, I move the committee rise, report significant progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
[ Page 11770 ]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before recognizing the House Leader, I would like to bring in a statement on the matter raised last Tuesday by the member for Richmond-Steveston, who sought to raise a matter of privilege in connection with comments made by another member following his withdrawal from debate pursuant to section 9 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.
Section 9 reads as follows:
"(1) A member who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a conflict of interest in a matter that is before the Assembly or the Executive Council, or a committee of either of them, shall, if present at a meeting considering the matter, (a) disclose the general nature of the conflict of interest, and (b) withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the consideration of the matter."
I would point out that the test for compliance is a subjective one, and that the requirement to withdraw is mandatory. In addition, a member may have sought the advice of the conflict-of-interest commissioner in confidence prior to making the withdrawal.
The Hansard indicates that the member stated he was withdrawing to comply with the act, and that another member commented adversely. While I cannot see that the member's ability to function has been impeded so as to attract a claim of breach of privilege, I would expect that withdrawal from debate under the mandatory provisions of the act ought not to be the subject of adverse comment by other members, and I would so rule.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish all members an enjoyable and restful weekend, and with that said, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:37 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]