1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2432

Oral Questions.

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mr. Barrett –– 2432

Water licence on Goldstream River. Mr. King –– 2432

Asbestos levels on Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Mitchell –– 2433

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Howard –– 2434

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2434

Mr. Stupich –– 2435

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

section 8.

Mr. Stupich –– 2436

On the amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2436

Mr. Stupich –– 2436

Division on the amendment to

section 8 –– 2436

Report and third reading –– 2437

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2437

Mr. Lauk –– 2438

Mr. Nicolson –– 2440

Mr. Ritchie –– 2441

Mr. Cocke –– 2442

Mr. Leggatt –– 2443

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2444

Division on second reading –– 2445

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 2445

section 2.

Mr. Lauk –– 2445

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2445

section 12.

Mr. Lauk –– 2446

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2446

On the title.

Mr. Lauk –– 2446

Report and third reading –– 2446

Forest and Range Resource Fund Act (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2446

Mr. King –– 2447

Mr. Stupich –– 2450

Mr. Howard –– 2450

Mr. Lockstead –– 2451

Mr. Nicolson –– 2452

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a few introductions. The first is to welcome to the

House the Richmond superstars girls' soccer team, who are here with

their, coach, Steve Byrne — I should say coaches and manager, because I

haven't got all the names, but they're travelling with them. This team

won the Canadian championship in 1978 and 1979 and provincial

championships in 1978, 1979 and 1980. They will be travelling to

Winnipeg later this year for the western Canadian championships, and

hopefully from that they will be hosting the Canadian championships in

Richmond. They are to be congratulated for their outstanding record and

also for the dedication and example they bring to young athletes in

other communities. They show they can be among the best if they apply

themselves, and with the coaching and dedication of coaches they can be

champions. I'd ask this House to welcome them today.

I have

two other introductions, Mr. Speaker. One is of a class from Pearson

Road Elementary School in my community, Kelowna. They are in the

precincts; I'm not sure if they are in the chamber at this present

time. I ask the House to welcome them.

There is also a class from the Dorothea Walker School in Kelowna. I ask the House to welcome them as well.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bid welcome to three citizens from the

constituency of Vancouver East where it all began — much of the good

that's happened to British Columbia and very little of the bad–– Messrs. Jarvis, Mavius and Sutherland.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In the galleries this afternoon are eight students who have just joined

our tour guides' organization and will be working in these buildings

during the summer this year. As we all know, the members of this tour

guides' organization, which I am proud to have in my ministry, have

always provided the best of service. They are the only official

representatives of this province that many of our visitors meet during

their visit with us. The tours that are conducted by these young men

and women in this building and in the museum are informative and very

widely appreciated.

I would like to introduce these new tour

guides: Donna McEwen, Mary Williams, Dora Nipp, Terry Barnett, Helene

de Celles, Janice Dumont, Margaret Layton and Jillian Stirk. Also, four

tour guides who are repeats from last year and other years but who are

not present in the chamber today are the following: Cathy Gower, Ken

McCartney, Michael Doherty and Colin Stewart. Would members please join

me in showing our appreciation of the work that is done by the tour

guides by welcoming these newcomers to the province.

MR. D'ARCY: With us in the gallery today we have the mayor of the

city of Rossland, Mr. Bill Profili. Also we have the manager of CJAT in Trail,

Mr. Barry Clark, who is here with the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. Mr.

Clark is also chairman of Trail Chamber of Commerce and president of the Rossland–Red

Mountain development committee. I would ask the House to give these two gentlemen

a very warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Speaking of good things from all parts of the province, it's a very

good day for the member for Okanagan North. If you'll look across the

way you'll see some of the most beautiful, happy and healthy faces that

you could find in British Columbia: 26 grade 7 students from Mission

Hill Elementary School in Vernon, with their very brave teacher, Mr.

Jed Astin. They are here this afternoon to witness question period and

to see Victoria. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome,

and at the same time to welcome two other very good friends from

Okanagan North: Rev. Funk, who is here meeting with Municipal Affairs

and who is a very strong worker for the good of the valley; also Mr.

Antony Stamboulieh, just back from England where he was visiting

British Columbia House and on his way back to Vernon. Thank you all for

giving them a warm welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr.

Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Ken MacDonald from Montreal. Ken

and I were classmates at Notre Dame University some years ago.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, today we have some additional guests from Richmond

visiting the precincts and the House. I'd like the House to acknowledge

the presence of 37 students from Donald E. McKay Elementary School,

accompanied by their teachers Jean Warburton and Frank Bourassa.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have four very special guests today. Mrs. Warren, Mrs.

Barkuski and Mrs. Tradjak from Vancouver are accompanying a very

special guest. I would ask the House to put aside yesterday's acrimony

and at least for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour put on the

best parliamentary display possible because we have with us today my

mother, Mrs. Gordon. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a hard worker visiting from the royal city of New Westminster, Frank Owston.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts are 26 grade 6 students from the Okanagan

Falls Elementary School, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Wall, and

one of their teachers, Mr. Al Forsey. I would ask the House to bid them

a warm welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, also in the

precincts today is a group of students from the Central Fraser Valley

South Poplar School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Dirksen, Would the House please welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, may I alert the members that I have a series of five

separate messages from His Honour the Administrator, having to do with

pension acts.

[ Page 2432 ]

PENSION (COLLEGE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION (TEACHERS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MR. BARRETT:

I have a question for the Premier. Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I'd just

like to make a brief statement. I welcome the Premier's very strong

statement in Quebec on Monday last on behalf of all British Columbians.

I want to ask the Premier a question. With the announcement by the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) of the government's support for the Foreign

Investment Review Agency with respect to Cargill's bid to buy Maplewood,

can the Premier tell us what date the decision was made to reverse his policy

that B.C. is not for sale?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no date was made to reverse the policy.

WATER LICENCE ON GOLDSTREAM RIVER

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On March 17, I asked

the minister whether he was aware that the fish and wildlife branch had

requested the water comptroller to hold public hearings into Noranda's

application for a water licence on the Goldstream River. The question

was taken as notice. Does the minister have an answer now?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I undertook at the time to take the question as notice. I

can get a reply. I believe I've requested one from the ministry, but

the indication I have in my preliminary investigation is that the fish

and wildlife branch did not respond to a request by Mr. Debeck when he

asked if there were any objections.

MR. KING: The

water comptroller has indicated that four reports were prepared on the

environmental impact on fisheries and wildlife by International

Environmental Consultants Ltd. Who retained this firm to undertake

these reports? Was it the licence applicant?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. KING: Did the fish and wildlife branch at Nelson, B.C., have an opportunity to study those reports and offer a reaction?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of having taken the earlier question on

notice, I'll just have to take this one on notice as well. I wouldn't

have that information if I didn't have the answer to the earlier

question.

MR. KING: The fourth report on

environmental impact was completed in October 1979. Mr. J.E. Farrell,

deputy comptroller of water rights, had issued a letter of approval in

principle on September 10, 1979, one month before the final report on

the environmental impact. How could the final report on the environment

bear any relevance to a decision which had already been made, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wasn't the minister

responsible at the time, as the member well knows, and I have no

knowledge of this particular report. I'll just have to assemble that

with the other questions I've taken on notice and endeavour to get that

answer for the member as soon as possible.

MR. KING:

I wonder if the minister can explain why he takes these questions as

notice — particularly the one I asked on March 17 regarding the fish

and wildlife branch's involvement where he personally wrote a letter on

March 5 to an objector. I'll quote from that letter. "In view of the

relatively minor environmental impact identified in a number of reports

prepared for Noranda's proposed project on the Goldstream River, it is

felt that a public hearing cannot be justified at this

[ Page 2433 ]

time."

If the minister knew on March 5 that a public hearing was not

justified, why is he so reticent to answer the questions in the House

today?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

ASBESTOS LEVELS ON

QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Victoria Princess , formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

is about to be in service and as yet there has been no assurance that

the passengers and crew can travel in safety. Have there been any

reports from the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. MAIR: From me or to me?

MR. MITCHELL: From your department on my previous questions.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether the member is asking whether there have

been reports to me or my ministry or from me or my ministry. I wonder

if he could clarify that.

MR. MITCHELL: Have there

been any reports to you that you can give to this House to assure this

House and the public that it is safe to travel on the ex- Queen of Prince Rupert ?

HON. MR. MAIR:

I can assure the member that my ministry has been working with the

Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board. However, I'm

not aware of any reports that may be in my possession, but I will

search for them and if there are any that I can release I'll bring them

back to the House.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question to

the Minister of Labour. Can the minister assure the House that the

ventilation system has been thoroughly cleaned of any asbestos fibre on

the same ship?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I had taken some

questions as notice earlier, and I explained to the House at the

beginning of the week, I think, that I wasn't satisfied with part of

the answer which had come back. At noon today I received an answer

which I think should satisfy the member. Approximately three weeks ago

tests were taken and the samples, which were then analyzed, did show

that the threshold value was exceeded. Yesterday there were 17 samples

taken and all were tested. I was interested in where the samples were

taken from: two were taken from the filter bank for the ventilation

system, four were taken from the dining lounge, one was taken from the

lounge deck, one was taken from the lounge itself, two were taken from

the Union Jack bar, two were taken from the upper car deck, one was

taken from the lower deck corridor, two were taken from the cafeteria,

and two were taken from the engine room. The tests all showed that none

had exceeded the permissible concentration, and that there was no

violation, and the employer is now in compliance with the WCB

regulations.

I was also advised, and specifically requested

in this instance, that the employer, B.C. Ferry Corporation, and the

union involved will be sent a copy of the WCB report.

MR. MITCHELL:

Could the minister tell the House what the permissible level is that he

is referring to as having not been exceeded? All my studies revealed

that there is no safe level of asbestos fibres in your lungs. What is

the level at this time that you are saying was not exceeded? Is there

asbestos in the air filters or is there asbestos in the air on the ship?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I find that rather a difficult question. It is not that I

don't want to answer, but I might suggest that I made an inquiry but

I'm not familiar with the technology which is used. There was something

about 5.3 to a certain cubic metre of air, and the asbestos which was

found within that particular sample was 60 percent of the permissible

level; in other words, 40 percent below that which is permitted and

accepted under occupational health and safety requirements. I asked

further: just what can we compare this to? We wonder what the

permissible level is for noise factors. There are always impurities in

water. I don't think it can ever be foolproof. There is no evidence

that asbestos, because it is being used.... There must be.

think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, is

this: the evidence that was given to me today was that the asbestos

levels are below the threshold value. It is perfectly safe for

passengers and crew on the ship.

MR. LAUK: On a

supplementary to the Minister of Labour, can the minister assure the

House that when the tests were taken the ventilation mechanism in the

ship was turned on?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot

specifically answer that question, but I will tell the member this: as

a matter of fact, I did ask about the internal ventilation system and

whether or not there had been a sample. I was assured that a sample had

been taken from the system. Of course, it was in the process of being

cleaned out. I presume it was on when it was done. That's one way of

taking the air out of the ventilation system. The implication in the

answer I received was that the sample which did come out of the system

was not tainted in any way.

MR. LAUK: The minister

indicated that he received an initial report and he was not satisfied

with it. Did the minister interfere at all at any time with the subject

matter of the report, as to its actual figures?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I might say the reason the report was not

satisfactory at the time I received it was that it did not give me the

particulars I wanted with respect to the sampling and testing which was

conducted. The second report made no reference to it at all.

MR. MITCHELL:

The minister reported to the House that he is releasing today results

from the samples taken yesterday. Why did it take three weeks to

release the samples that were taken right after the accident, and why

were the employees still working in it prior to the release of this

sample? If it took one day to get the results of yesterday's samples,

why did it take three weeks to get the results for the samples that

were taken three weeks ago?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made

[ Page 2434 ]

reference

to the fact that the samples which were taken approximately three weeks

ago did indicate levels of asbestos above the threshold value. There

was no question about the fact that there was excessive asbestos in the

air. I found that out. I think the important thing is to determine what

the tests say now. I also made reference — I advised the member and, as

a matter of fact, tabled a response — as to whether or not the WCB was

aware of a problem and what they were doing about it.

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. HOWARD:

I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Has he determined if the government is bound by the terms of

the 1961 agreement between the province and the Aluminum Company of

Canada Ltd., and bound by the terms of the water licence which was

issued to the company, which licence purports to give that company the

right to unilaterally proceed with the Kemano completion project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm sure the member meant 1951 rather than 1961. All those matters are

under discussion at the present time. There are many legal

ramifications and we are pursuing those at the present time.

Nevertheless, the important question at the present time is that the

government is bound, and has said repeatedly — and I'm happy to be able

to say it again — that there will be no development of that

hydroelectric proposal without full public hearings.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that there is a moratorium with respect

to the commencement of the project? If there is a government decision preventing

Alcan from proceeding, what's the length of time of that moratorium?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

If the project not being able to go ahead without full public hearings

means there is a moratorium, there is a moratorium. The moratorium will

be on until the public hearings are held, and until the public hearings

satisfy the people of British Columbia that the project is either in

their best interests or not in their best interests; if that's a

moratorium, it will be on until then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I rise at the first opportunity to raise this point of

order. During question period the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell) referred to a number of studies that he'd done,

indicating that there was no safe level of asbestos contamination. It

was my understanding that the tradition in this House was that when you

referred to documents of that sort, they were tabled in the House at

the first opportunity. I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew if he would table those studies, because all of us are

extremely interested in them.

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the point of order raised by the minister. I

would remind the House that a week ago I asked the Chair to give a ruling on

this point of order. Indeed it was raised by me when the Premier during

his estimates quoted from a document and then refused to table that document

in the House. I would welcome your ruling, along the lines suggested by the

minister. I think everybody should table all documents they refer to — including

the Premier.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm very sorry that I wasn't present in the House when the hon. leader

of the official opposition introduced his mother. I would very much

like to join in the welcome, and to say that her influence in here is

already being felt. If her daily attendance could initiate such a

spirit of continuing tranquillity, that indeed would be most welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Obviously you don't know my mother well enough.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I want to know where the woodshed was.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: In introducing

for second reading Bill 2, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, I

would like to offer a few remarks to the hon. members today. The act

before us proposes amendments to 12 statutes administered by the

Minister of Finance. Generally, as members will have noted, inasmuch as

this bill has been on the order paper for some considerable time, the

amendments reduce some taxes, increase exemptions, eliminate fees,

provide for payment of interest on overdue payments from the province,

broaden the group entitled to gasoline tax refunds and correct a number

of administrative deficiencies in current legislation.

Specifically,

sir, the proposed amendments are: firstly, as part of the program to

cushion the impact of energy costs on British Columbians, the Fuel-oil

Tax Act is to be repealed, effective retroactively to March 11 of this

year. The loss of revenue in this fiscal year from the repeal of this

act is estimated at $1 million.

Secondly, the gasoline tax

provision of 2.6 cents a litre or 12 cents a gallon rebate on gasoline

used by persons who have lost a limb or are permanently confined to a

wheelchair or who receive a 100 percent disability pension is to be

expanded to include handicapped persons in receipt of benefits under

the Guaranteed Available Income for Need program and persons who,

except for age, qualify as handicapped under that program. It is

estimated this expanded category will result in an additional 5,000

persons being eligible for gasoline tax refunds at an estimated cost of

$85,000. The same expanded category will be added to the Motive-fuel

Use Tax Act by amendment to the present regulation under that act. The

Gasoline Tax and Motive-fuel Use Tax acts are also amended to delete

the provision which would have required a bulk agent to collect urban

transit tax on sales of fuel delivered out of a prescribed area

designated by the UTA act.

Thirdly, as part of the program to encourage small

[ Page 2435 ]

businesses,

the income tax rate applicable to small businesses is to be reduced

from 12 percent to 10 percent, effective — again retroactively —

January 1, 1980. Mr. Speaker, an estimated 20,000 small businesses will

benefit, and the loss in revenue from this rate reduction is expected

to be $21 million in the 1980-81 fiscal year. Hon. members will note

that the proposed small business income tax rate in British Columbia

will be lower than the small business rate in effect in Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and equal to the rate in

effect in Ontario and Prince Edward Island.

Fourthly, the

Insurance Premiums Tax Act is proposed to be amended to have a 2

percent tax applied on the reinsurance premium at the originating

company rather than at the reinsuring company. This measure will mean

no difference in revenue but will change the tax basis, as requested by

the companies, to the same basis as is used in all other provinces. It

is also proposed, commencing in 1981, for companies whose tax payable

is over $25,000 to introduce a system of instalment payments of that

tax.

As part of the program to encourage industrial

diversification, the fifth point deals with the Mining Tax Act, which

is to be amended to give an incentive for processing and manufacturing

mineral resources. The existing deduction from taxable income based on

the undepreciated capital cost of processing and manufacturing assets

is to be changed to a deduction from the base of original cost of the

processing or manufacturing assets, and the maximum allowance changed

from 65 percent to 70 percent of the taxable income, dependent on the

amount of manufacturing done. These changes will, we know, offer

encouragement to the producer to process the product beyond the raw

material stage. In place of the present $10,000 exemption, a new

exemption is proposed which will eliminate from taxation the small

operator whose taxable income does not exceed $50,000. This will result

in about 40 fewer businesses having to pay mining tax. The changes will

result in a revenue loss of $1 million and are to be effective July 31,

1979 — again retroactively — to eliminate any tax discrimination

resulting from the 1979 amendment to the Mining Tax Act.

Sixth

point. Mr. Speaker, as part of this government's continuing program to

simplify required returns or information necessary to be made or given,

the fees now required to be calculated under the Probate Fees Act are

eliminated effective March 11, 1980. I would advise the House that the

act has not been repealed in its entirety now, as information gathered

under it is needed and it also acts as a central registry of estates in

British Columbia. However, we hope to have legislation introduced at

some later time to have this information and central registry function

moved to the Ministry of the Attorney-General, and at that time the

Probate Fees Act could be repealed. The loss in revenue from the

elimination of the fees to which I have referred will be $1.5 million.

The

seventh point, the amendment to the Revenue Act to permit payment of

interest on late payment of government accounts payable and overpaid

taxes, is one which I have personally sought for a good number of years

and which I am most pleased to propose today. Reference was also made

at the time of the budget for this fiscal year. This measure will mean

that, like most business operations, the ministries will be penalized

if they are delinquent in paying their bills. The fact that interest

will be payable on accounts unpaid after 60 days should, we believe,

encourage prompt payment by the ministries and assist business dealing

with government with their financing costs. This will be made

effective, by regulation, after passage and royal assent for this bill.

The estimated cost — and frankly I tell the House that it is an

estimate only — of this payment of interest on overdue accounts and

overpaid taxes is some $2 million per year.

The proposed

amendment to the Revenue Sharing Act by deletion of the Fuel-oil Tax

Act, now proposed for repeal, will not substantially affect the share

of revenue going to British Columbia's municipalities. This is because

the revenue from the Fuel-oil Tax Act was a relatively small $2

million, with only $120,000 to be distributed, when in fact the

municipalities' share, under revenue-sharing in 1979, was some $141

million.

Next, an amendment to the Succession Duty Act is

proposed to allow interest on overdue duties to be set by an order of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is the same as provisions in

force in all the other taxation acts. Although the act was repealed

effective January 24, 1977, there is still approximately $2 million in

duties outstanding. Application of the current rates of interest, now

16 1/2 percent, to these duties should give the executors of the

estates an incentive to pay these outstanding duties.

The

last proposed amendment in this bill is one to eliminate the present

double taxation of coal leases and licences. This will mean an

approximate $40,000 reduction in revenue from 24 companies now paying

the double tax.

I thank the House for its patience during

the recital of these various aspects of this particular bill, and I now

move second reading with the observation that indeed committee

discussion may be seen to be more appropriate by members of the House.

MR. STUPICH:

I suppose it's a sign of the times that relatively minor amendments to

some ten taxation acts add up in total to something like $48.4 million

as an estimate of reduction of revenue. As the minister suggested, the

detailed discussion of this legislation would better be left to

committee. The opposition certainly doesn't intend to debate this bill

long in second reading. Most of the tax changes are progressive and we

would support them. I suppose the $48 million could have been spent in

ways that would have suited us more, but certainly most of the changes

will be supported. In some areas we might have wished that the minister

had gone further; in some changes we might have wished that he had not

moved at all. But I'll reserve my comments with respect to those

changes until we get to the committee stage, when we will be dealing

with them one at a time. The opposition will support the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I thank the member opposite for his comments; indeed there will be

discussion in committee. I now move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Bill

2, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2436 ]

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 7 or 8?

MR. STUPICH:

Halfway between. We passed number 7, Mr. Chairman. What I have is an

amendment to move that would add a new

section 8. That's why I say

halfway between. I would like to move the amendment. Well, I guess I'd

better speak on it first.

I made this point yesterday, I

think, in discussion of second reading as to how we started levying a

corporation capital tax in the province. The levying of this

corporation capital tax does impose an additional burden on the payers

of this tax. It's a new set of records, a new set of calculations, new

tax forms. It does impose a burden on government, because it means that

some people have to administer this act and have to try to keep track

of the tax returns that are being filed to see whether or not the

corporation capital tax is being properly calculated. It brings in

approximately the same amount of revenue as an additional one point on

the corporate income tax. The income tax is levied on the basis of

income,

whereas the capital tax is levied, in some cases, on debt —

certainly not on income. I think it's a tax that we could well do away

with completely. For that reason, I move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper [see appendix], which would insert a new

section 8 — and I take the direction from the way in which the probate

fees amendment is being introduced — the effect of which would be to do

away with this tax in future, but would not do away with the

legislation which would allow the government to straighten up anything

that may remain in abeyance from previous filings under this

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. For

the benefit of the Chair, could I ask the member for Nanaimo if this

amendment was to strike out

section 8, or to renumber it

section 9?

MR. STUPICH: Depending upon what happens to this new

section 8, we might

then have to renumber the existing

section 8, but I thought I'd wait until

we find out whether or not we have a new

section 8.

MR., CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, that helps the Chair greatly.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: While we indicated in second reading, as a matter of

fact, that the position taken by the spokesman for the official opposition is

very interesting and suggests a subject which we would want to consider in the

course of time, we cannot accept the amendment, and the government therefore

must oppose it. I would like to be cooperative but we can't accept this

amendment. As the member has observed, Mr. Chairman, it would in effect repeal

the Corporation Capital Tax Act effective April 30, 1980, and therefore wouldn't just

amend it as the government has intended, but would shut it down completely.

I wonder if, in fact, the amendment was in order. However, the government cannot

accept it, should you again rule that it is in order. I thank the member for

the amendment.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm rather surprised that the government finds itself

unable to accept this amendment. Certainly the party that now forms the

government in the province took a very strong stand on this legislation

when it was introduced, I believe, in 1973. They had no difficulty in

making up their mind with no notice then. They've had four years'

experience in government, and surely during that time should have

confirmed or abandoned their earlier position with respect to the

corporation capital tax. I don't understand why the government, after

all that experience, is unable to reach any decision with respect to

eliminating this legislation.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Stupich requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 8.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, although it's not proper to reflect on a vote, it should

be noted that after the division bells had rung the hon. member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) left the chamber and refused to

support that government in defeating this good motion on behalf of the

small businessmen in British Columbia. I should have said the member....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I meant the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Let the record indicate that the first member for

Vancouver Centre erred in indicating that the member indicated was to

be the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and not the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 2437 ]

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 4, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. SMITH: In 1977 the

Legislature passed the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, which

provided a new framework for post-secondary education in colleges and

institutes — that is, all institutions other than universities. About

two and a half years' experience under that act have shown that this

legislation requires some refining and polishing to ensure that our 14

community colleges and 6 provincial institutes can continue to meet the

educational needs of British Columbians today.

I've tried to

devote major attention to the colleges and institutes, and I have

toured a dozen of the 14 colleges and a number of the institutes. They

are the major area of growth in the educational system. The average

growth this year in these institutions was 15 percent, which of course

contrasts with a really zero growth rate in the schools overall. In

order to meet the challenge of this major increase in the number of

people attending colleges and institutes, it was necessary to introduce

some immediate amendments, and this has been done.

introducing this bill, it should also be pointed out that the colleges

and institutes operate under the authority of three councils. They have

an Occupational Training Council and an Academic Council which review

financial operating requests, make recommendations to the minister, and

allocate funds. In addition to that, there is a Management Advisory

Council, which has some further responsibilities, including long-range

planning and the recommendation of capital budgets. The relationship of

these three councils to each other and to the colleges and institutes

still requires some refining.

The three councils did an

exceptionally fine job in this their first year of budgeting under the

new act, and received high praise from Treasury Board officials. I'm

very impressed with the efforts that were made by the boards of our

colleges and institutes as well as by the councils, and I will be

seeking ways of strengthening the operation of this system in the year

ahead.

Many of the amendments proposed in this bill are

housekeeping and mechanical. They address some of the lapses and

ambiguities in the existing act. They do not, however, pretend to be a

comprehensive revision at this time.

Included in the

amendments is a proposal that the minister be able to designate

programs such as libraries and student services, in addition to

instructional programs, to either one of the post-secondary institutes.

Also

included is a clarification of the minister's power to allocate funds.

Under the existing legislation there are at least three functions that

are not assigned to any of the existing councils — that is, continuing

education, debt servicing and ancillary services. It will now be clear

that the minister can allocate funds for those; there was some doubt

before this.

Another provision will increase the number of

government appointees on the college boards to one greater than the

total of school board appointees. The present act provides that the

school boards outnumber the total government appointees by one. Of

course, the reason that school boards were appointing people to the

boards of colleges grew out of the original funding arrangements. The

school boards had a role in that — coming down from 100 to 50 percent,

and then recently to 20 percent and 10 percent; and now they have a

zero role. None of the operating or debt costs of community colleges

are paid from property taxes. Nevertheless, it was a very good reason

to keep school boards involved in community colleges, and to have each

school board in a region to continue to appoint a member to a community

college board. But it was not unreasonable to expect that the

government should appoint one more than the sum total of those

appointees, as the government was funding the colleges by 100 percent.

Because

these community colleges represent the views of a region — and the

region may be a very large and diverse region, such as the region that

Northern Lights College serves, a region of some 800 miles in length —

it is most important that reflected in these boards is not just the sum

total of five school districts but the regional character of the area

served by the college. I think it is important that the minister has to

have an overview of the college region when he is making appointments.

Also

in this housekeeping bill are some provisions which deal with the term

of appointment, clarifying that appointments to college boards may be

for a period of two years but need not be two-year appointments. In

other words, they could be for one year or two years. In the case of

school districts, they will make their appointments for one year. That

is the existing law, because a number of school boards do change their

character every year and still have annual elections.

There

is also a clarification in the appointment of members of institutes.

They also can be appointed for a period of up to two years, but need

not be for a period of two years; and they can be appointed to the

councils for up to three years, but they could be for one, two or three

years.

There is a minor alteration which eliminates the

necessity of all resolutions and bylaws that are dealt with at a board

meeting being forwarded to the minister. The minister now will only

have to see those that are actually passed. This will prevent a good

deal of unnecessary paperwork and timewasting in forwarding material

that is only considered and not passed.

Borrowing powers of

colleges and institutes are restricted under the 1977 act to a savings

institution, and these are now proposed to be broadened so that they

will have the same borrowing powers as other educational institutions.

There is also clarification contained in this bill that will

[ Page 2438 ]

ensure

that the pension rights of employees will be clearly known, so that the

professional staff of the colleges and institutes will be covered by

the Pension (College) Act and the support staff by the Pension

(Municipal) Act — except in the case of either of these being former

public servants; they shall continue to be covered under the Pension

(Public Service) Act.

There is also a provision that in

order to sit on the Management Advisory Council, the appointee of the

board chairman of an institution.... The board chairmen of the various

colleges and institutes make up the Management Advisory Council. If the

chairman wants to designate someone in his place, that person has to be

a member of the college or institute board.

Also there is a

clarification of the rights of members of councils to receive

reasonable expenses as well as their honorarium, and also provision

that a public service employee who serves on one of these councils can

also receive such expenses and an honorarium.

In

summary,

the proposed amendments are for the most part housekeeping in nature,

with some fine-tuning to assist the colleges and institutes, as well as

the ministry, to meet their post-secondary mandate in a more effective

way.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the

minister brings this bill in at this time. He describes it in a way

that is rational, logical, soft and smooth; but it is a bill which has

received, since its introduction in this chamber, considerable

opposition from the various groups that are going to be affected by it,

and I'll deal with that in a moment.

But I want to ask the

House today to consider these remarks which were delivered to people

interested in education, and for the public to hear throughout the

province, and I want you to guess who made them. I'm quoting here

directly, and you've got one guess only:

"Maybe

you'd rather have me sit in Victoria surrounded by snowy-haired

officials, swimming in paper like some great sort of benign educational

midwife and hand down pronouncements; tell you how to run your

programs; tell you how much sex education we should have; tell you

exactly the size of your school board offices; and do all these

gorgeously paternalistic things. I could dry your eyes and hold your

hand."

This should be said to music, Mr. Speaker.

"I'm not going to do those things."

Guess who.

MR. NICOLSON: Agnes Kripps?

MR. LAUK: Wrong. Any more guesses? I have heard Agnes Kripps; do I hear any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mary Worth?

MR. LAUK:

You would think so, because not only were the recipients of that

message drowned in a vat of melted Hershey bars, drowned in liberal

generalities, but so were all of the organizations affected by this

act. The act itself is in total contradiction to the speech, and the

speech that I quoted is that of the new Minister of Education speaking

to the School Trustees Association of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK:

Yes. On March 3 he said.... Let's run through this again; it's a great

speech. He said: "I'm not going to be some sort of benign educational

midwife...." I'm certain he wouldn't pass the medical inspection

anyway, unless he's referring to the part about sex education.

Then

he says: "I'm not going to do all these gorgeously paternalistic things

" The words just flow from the mouth so easily, Mr. Speaker — much too

easily. Do they have meaning? Did he really mean it? The answer is no.

He didn't mean a word of it. He likes to hear the sound of his voice:

soft, fatherly. He knows best. Great big central government will

control education in this province under this benign, benevolent

dictator, this would-be midwife surrounded by snowy-haired officials —

dwarfs, I assume, little gnomes whispering into the great Gandolf's

ear. The Wizard of Oz speaks out and decides for us little people,

little Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit, who don't know any better. We have to

listen to the dictates of a man who knows what's best for us, our

colleges, our children, our education — even on a regional and district

basis.

Mr. Speaker, what is the reaction from the people who

work every day in the colleges and institutions of this province? What

was their reaction? Amazement. On the heels of a statement such as that

from the Minister of Education, he brings in Bill 15, College and

Institute Amendment Act, 1980, which wrests power with the stroke of a

pen from school boards and regional representatives who have been duly

and democratically elected. His excuse is that the province now

provides 100 percent of funding. That is — I use his language —

sophistry, Mr. Speaker. It's also nonsense, because the people of the

regions pay provincial taxes and contribute heavily to the provincial

coffers, and they have a right, when they vote.... The same people that

vote for us in this chamber vote for the people on school boards and

municipalities. They are democratically elected people who have

sacrificed their time from family life and ordinary work to work in the

regions and the school districts to assist in providing a local and

regional characteristic. The member for Prince George, who has devoted

many, many years to the service of his own school district, knows full

this full well.

These people are democratically elected.

They are responsible to their electors, and this minister gives them a

back of the hand and says: "You are not capable of making decisions,

because I'm going to be gorgeously paternalistic, surrounded by my

snowy-haired officials, and I'll swim in paper like a benign

educational midwife and hand down pronouncements." We must take the

opposite of what he said as being true. What is the reaction, Mr.

Speaker? The latest word I have is that the College Faculties

Federation, the organization that represents college teachers, has

passed a motion condemning the bill. I understand that the Union of

British Columbia Municipalities will have a similar motion to consider.

The British Columbia School Trustees Association passed the following

motion in relation to Bill 15. I'll read their news report.

"The

proposed formula for revising college board composition is a major

amendment, and trustees are concerned because it would tip the balance

of ministerial appointees as opposed to school district appointees in

the ministry's favour. At the recent B.C. School Trustees Association

annual general meeting, trustees reacted to the proposed amendment by

make-

[ Page 2439 ]

ing a special resolution that states: 'A unilateral decision to amend the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act....'"

I underline the word "unilateral," because

this minister did not consult with the Colleges Association before

these amendments were made. He didn't even have the democratic grace to

accept their submissions and thoughts on the proposed amendments.

" '...a unilateral decision to amend the Colleges and

Provincial Institutes Act so that the number of government appointees

is one more than the number of school board appointees is regrettable,

particularly in light of the positive atmosphere of cooperation and

consultation that was set by the new minister so recently. School

trustees are accountable to the local voters,

whereas government

appointees are accountable to those who appoint them. The

responsiveness of the community colleges to their constituents at the

local level will be totally undermined by this action. Increasing the

number of government appointees to one more than the number of school

board appointees increases the size of college boards by two members.

Some college boards already have 11 members, and an increase could be

both cumbersome and costly.

Be it resolved that the School Trustees

Association urge the Minister of Education to maintain the existing

formula for the make-up of college boards.' "

understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the resolution was passed by a vast

majority of the delegates, if not unanimously. There is no question

that all of the school trustees in British Columbia represented there

at that annual meeting are totally and strenuously against the

minister's action. He would have found that out had he done what he's

been promising on the School Act — have his ear to the ground, go out

there and listen to people, talk to them, consult with them. So we now

see that this minister says one thing and does another. As Ralph Waldo

Emerson said: "The things that you do speak so loudly, I can't hear the

things that you say." People in the educational institutions and

colleges throughout the province are saying that today about this new

Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, what were the press reports and what were the statements of the

minister when the bill was first introduced? He said: "The change reflects

the fact that the provincial government now provides 100 percent of the funds

for community colleges. Considering that, we felt that the government should

have overriding responsibility." Today he used the word "overview"

when he was talking about regional appointments. He's going to have an overview.

April 30 he said "overriding responsibility." Contrast that, if you

will, with this statement: "I'm not going to do those things. I'm not

going to be gorgeously paternalistic. I'm not going to tell you how to

run your programs, tell you what size of school boards and offices

you're going to have. I'm not going to swim in paper and be surrounded

by snowy-haired officials." He's over there talking to the school

trustees, and he's even attacking his own ministry officials. I mean

what kind of a minister would do that? I ask you. Calling them

snowy-haired....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got hair!

MR. LAUK: You ought to know, Mr. Minister. H2O over there says he's got hair.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Anyway, what was the reaction of Rubymay Parrott, recently past president of

the BCSTA? She said she was disappointed with the change, and she said this:

"That really shows that the Social Credit government is in favour of centralization

of control of the college system. I would prefer to see an elective process

for college boards. It doesn't mean, just because it's funded totally

by the provincial government, that they have to look over their shoulder to

this extent." Amen to that, Mr. Speaker. These people pay taxes.

When

the minister said in his opening remarks on this bill that the reason

that there were locally appointed members to college boards in the

first place was because the school districts provided some financial

support, that was only one reason. We were the ones that set up this

system. There were other more important major reasons why there were

locally appointed people. If all hon. members will read Hansard ,

in the days when the original act came before this House, the minister

of the day — now the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) —

stated clearly: "This is a first step, and the second stage is a

development of the college system. The regional college system, the

community college system, will be giving more and more control and

administrative authority to school districts, and not the other way

around."So the Minister of Education is dead wrong.

It was

only a minor reason to give local appointments — that is to say

financial sharing. The major reason was that the community colleges

would be influenced predominantly by regions and local boards and the

interests of the region — that is to say the people, the voters and the

students that would come from that region should have the democratic

control and guidance of these institutions. To take a paternalistic

approach, in contradistinction to his remarks, is a harbinger of things

to come. This minister has travelled around the school districts of

this province promising decentralization, promising that we'll move

away from this massive control of the ministry over every aspect of

education and allow the people some room to breathe — a breath of fresh

air. But the only action he's taken — not just words, actions — has

been a move towards greater centralized dictatorial control of

education right here in his hands in Victoria.

The B.C.

Colleges Association executive are upset. They met last week, and

they're very, very disturbed by this turn of events. The British

Columbia Teachers' Federation is very upset at this turn of events, not

only because of the move towards centralization but clearly because

they can see that the minister says one thing and does another; clearly

because they can see that all of his promises to listen to the

interested people, to listen to the public, may just be promises that

will never be kept. They're losing confidence in the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. LAUK:

No, I don't hope. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to that member — he should

know this. Education for our children and post-secondary education are

far too important in this province to play politics with, and I want to

charge today that the Minister of Education is playing politics with

the colleges; he's playing politics with education. It's playing

politics to go around this province saying one thing and then doing

another. That's politics. Instead of playing those

[ Page 2440 ]

games

with the people and offending the credibility of the minister — which

is an office, not a person. He is offending the credibility of his

office when he goes about this province saying that he's going to

decentralize on the one hand, but bringing in Bill 15 on the other.

There

is more to come, Mr. Speaker, because we can see that all the Minister

of Education is is Pat McGeer with a smiling face. That is the same. He

is his predecessor with a smiling face, Mr. Speaker. The former

Minister of Education went around this province....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I was just quoting a slogan; I won't use a personal name. The former

minister went around this province undermining the morale of the public

education system. He attacked the colleges. He attacked mass education.

He was an academic elitist with a frown on his face. Now we have a

Minister of Education who is an academic elitist with a smile on his

face. I think we'd be better off with the predecessor, Mr. Speaker. At

least we knew where we stood. So wipe that smile off your face, Mr.

Minister. If you're going to do it to the people, do it with a frown so

they'll know what's happening.

HON. MR. FRASER: Socialists are against smiling now too?

MR. LAUK:

There is the man who has survived 56 years solely on porcupine pie, Mr.

Speaker. We get all of it in his speeches. The opposition to this bill

is 100 percent. It makes you wonder whether we're living in a

democratic system or not, when an academic elitist, dictatorial

minister can bring in a bill like this in the face of 100 percent

public opposition. It is incredible, yet he does it. He says, "Well,

after all, we're paying the bill," as if it was his money. "We're

paying the bill; therefore I'm going to call the shots." Well, that is

a very sad attitude to have, I say to the minister through you, Mr.

Speaker.

Finally, I would like to point out that the

minister has made great promises over the last several months. The

newsletter and the communications from the School Trustees Association

have requested the minister to withdraw the bill and to leave things

the way they are. My understanding is that there were other concerned

trustees who individually have sent their special concern to the

minister and have not yet received a reply. In addition, to date, there

is still no reply to many inquiries urging the minister to withdraw the

bill. He is stiffly, steadfastly and stubbornly going to take this bill

through the chamber in the face of such public opposition.

The

dream of the community college is over. The idea that it would reflect

local community values, that the curriculum could have some local

flavour, that it would be an institution to educate people of all ages

at night and during the day is all over. The Minister of Education is

taking centralized control into Victoria's hands. We might as well go

back to the old system where we didn't have regional or community

colleges at all. It is a sad commentary on this new, bushy-tailed

minister that four or five months after his appointment he would....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

For that hon. member's sake, I'll ignore the remark, Mr. Speaker.

People in that member's area — on the Selkirk College board and other

institutions in that area — have informed me of their very grave

concerns about this bill. I'm sure that hon. member has received these

concerns and I'm sure.... I won't breathe a word of it, Mr. Speaker —

about that hon. member's laughing during the debate of this bill — that

he didn't take it seriously. I won't breathe a word outside of these

four walls to his constituents. I promise I won't tell a soul. To those

who request a copy of my speech, of course, I will have to send it, but

I'm sure they will keep the secret too. The people of Selkirk, the

people of those school districts in that hon. member's ridings, are

very, very concerned. And that minister considers it a laughing matter.

There is no more regional control and governance available to school

districts because of this bill, and the opposition will vote against it.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister, who, from all appearances, made a

good start — when he was first appointed, he seemed to be making the

welcome types of moves — has, with this bill, undone a great deal of

work and effort. And for what? It is probably the principle rather than

the practical application of this change which would, in effect, put

two more government appointees on the various community college boards

in order to give the government the position of outnumbering the school

board appointees by one member instead of being outnumbered by one. It

is the principle. What might happen in terms of the actual control is

hard to determine. I suppose that some of the government appointees....

I suppose some boards do exist where the government appointees line up

and vote one way and the school board appointees vote another way. I

would hope that in most community colleges they would tend to make

decisions based on the information placed before them — the resolutions

under consideration.

Look at the principle that is embodied

in this bill. It says that Big Brother government has to have

centralized control, because a couple of years ago we went to 100

percent funding. Therefore we've got to pull the strings. Really,

what's been the change? They've gone to 100 percent funding. How did

they go about that? One of the things they did was increase the

statutory mill rate levy so that school taxes all over the province,

during a time of increasing property assessments, went sky-rocketing.

On the other hand, they took them away and removed a burden. So if you

look at what local people are paying for their school tax bill, you

probably haven't noticed much change, except that it has continued to

go up. They probably didn't even notice that about 3 mills or so were

removed by the act of the government assuming 100 percent funding. It

really is the people's money after all. What we should be asking is:

who is best to decide?

How do government appointees get

appointed? It's amazing, you know, that when we came to government we

looked at certain appointees. Certainly local MLAs were consulted, as

I'm sure the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is consulted if there

are any re-appointments to be made. But members on this side aren't. I

do know that we re-appointed a lot of the former government's

appointees. They were doing a good job. I remember the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) coming into

this House and reciting people as being political hacks and political

appointees. He named the government agent in the city of Nelson and

smeared his name — the very member who is now chief of all government

agents in the

[ Page 2441 ]

Ministry

of Finance. I won't name a name, but that's what happened. That was

their attitude. Their attitude is that you make political appointments

and you don't look at qualifications and you don't consult local MLAs,

regardless of party; you just replace them with your own.

Mr.

Speaker, my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), touched on the point that in British Columbia we have a

community college system. We made a conscious choice not to go to a

junior college system, such as exists in the United States. We came up

with something here in British Columbia that was a little bit unique.

How did some of these community colleges come into existence in the

first place? Selkirk College, located near Castlegar, was brought into

existence by the passage of a referendum. In those days it was not

government deciding for people; it was people deciding for themselves

after they were given the facts. They made a decision and that decision

was to go ahead, knowing full well that they were going to have to face

and carry a greater tax burden. So in the first instance, Selkirk

College was set up as, I think, the first campus of the original

community colleges. I think Selkirk College was the first campus built

in one of the regions in which several school districts came together

and cooperated; and of course we got started on the community college

system. It operated very well.

Quite frankly, recently I

have been critical about the lack of leadership, which is exemplified

at Selkirk College by the fact that they've gone about a year and a

half without a permanent president; they were a very long time without

a bursar; they've had trouble in filling positions and so on. I could

be quite critical. But these are the things that locally responsible

people must take responsibility for — the things they can do better.

Really, while there are any government appointees in large numbers on a

college board, when it is in difficulty one could very easily shift the

burden of responsibility from the local area, which is the only area

that has the wherewithal to solve the problem. One could very well

blame the leadership — almost certainly in the future — on the

preponderance of government appointees. The minister is not going to

have an independent operating board; he is going to have to accept full

blame and responsibility for whatever happens.

The minister

was in our area recently and made an announcement, which I welcomed,

that the University of Victoria was going to take over the lead role in

the management of the David Thompson University Centre — take it away

from Selkirk College. Unfortunately that statement was a little bit

premature, but it shows again that the minister, rather than following

his original instincts and his original good beginnings, probably feels

that he can tell the University of Victoria what to do. Well, I have

news for the minister: there's a thing called academic freedom. Like it

or not, the minister is going to have to consult with the universities.

If he wants the college system to work, he is going to have to have the

cooperation of local agencies.

This is a slap in the face.

It is a rude awakening to the B.C. School Trustees Association, and

it's a warning to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. When they see this

kind of unilateral action, as was pointed out in that emergency

resolution presented by Kamloops School District 24 to the BCSTA

convention, and carried.... They started it off by saying that it was a

unilateral decision to amend the colleges act.

I can look at

other parts of this act and say, yes, they should be passed. Some of

them, I think, are good, because they are somewhat reassuring. I don't

know if it's necessary to enshrine the rights already granted to people

under their collective agreements and under successor status of the

Labour Relations Board, but it certainly is reassuring and good. I

welcome such guarantees as that employees who through reorganization

come under community colleges will be allowed to continue their benefit

plans under what I think is the most beneficial thing in each case, and

that they've been given continuance, as in the case of many of the

employees at Selkirk College and, I would imagine, throughout other

parts of the province where there have been some rather complicated

successions of authority, and there promise to be even further ones.

The government has taken it upon itself to ensure that these are done

under the most favourable circumstances in terms of their pensions and

other aspects of their collective agreements.

The

housekeeping aspects of this, many of which are useful and important,

cannot be separated from a principle of the bill that once again says

that senior government knows best. Really, Mr. Minister, you could make

yourself a hero and you could recoup any loss of face. It would not

diminish your stature if when we go into committee you were to withdraw

this offensive section. It really would be well advised. Frankly, I

don't think it's worth it. I'll tell you, if I were in your shoes, if

I, for whatever reason, had been convinced of the logic — which I don't

accept now — that because we're paying 100 percent we should have two

more members on every board, so that instead of having one member less

we can have one member more.... Mr. Minister, it isn't worth it.

has been said, politics aside, I think that there are — or at least

have been — very high hopes riding on your shoulders. Education has

taken quite a kicking in this province for the last three years, and it

has been hoped that there could be a new dawn of cooperation. If you

want to maintain the cooperation which I feel has been extended to you

by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, by the BCSTA, by teachers in the

colleges and by everyone who is concerned with education, I would urge

you to remove the offensive

section of this bill. It would be, perhaps,

one of the finest and wisest things you've ever done.

MR. RITCHIE:

I'm compelled to say a few words here in support of this bill but more

particularly in support of our Minister of Education. I am concerned

about the remarks made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in

respect to the minister, because only last Friday I had the wonderful

experience of having the minister in my constituency where he met with

people representing the private and public school system. One meeting

in one of our senior high schools he met and spoke to approximately 350

people — teachers, principals, trustees and all of those representing

our school district. He was extremely well received. He left a

tremendous impression, and I am sure that those remarks by the member

for Vancouver Centre are all wrong.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, we are on Bill 15 and your remarks might be more

appropriate during the estimates of the minister. If you could speak to

Bill 15 and the general principle of the act, it would be appreciated

by all members present.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just thought I should take

[ Page 2442 ]

this

opportunity only because of the remarks that were made. But the things

mentioned by the member for Vancouver Centre in respect to the minister

are all wrong.

MR. COCKE: I'll try to speak to the

principle — what we can find — of Bill 15. In the first place we have a

rather confusing situation before us. We have Bill 15, the College and

Institute Amendment Act, 1980, and that's an amendment to good old Bill

82 that I seem to recall very well in 1977 in this House. Bill 82 at

the time was intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. There's

a word that slipped out of there along the way.

HON. MR. SMITH: Statute revisions.

MR. COCKE:

The minister says "revisions." The statute revisions have not been

passed in this House. I think you've confused everybody. The statute

revision doesn't become law until it's passed by this House.

Frankly,

I'm not quite sure that that was the proper place for that kind of

change. That kind of change could have been instituted with Bill 15 if

they wanted to change the title of the original act of parliament. But

we have a bill before us that is incorrectly titled. What happened is

that we have a bill here that amends what I consider to be one of the

most thoughtless acts of a government who were dedicated at the time of

their first and second elections, they told the public, to

decentralization.

The first bill, Bill 82 — and this is the

one that we're amending now, the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act

— was criticized across the province. I don't know how many critiques

I've got of it here, and I could dig up a zillion more from people that

were basically interested in the community college concept. What we did

with the original Bill 82 was to centralize the program under the

authority of the Minister of Education. And what we've done now is to

further centralize and create more power in the minister's hands.

remember when the minister was first appointed. There was a great sigh

of relief that went up all over the community. It was a sigh of relief

saying: "At long last we are rid of that authoritarian, that elitist

from UBC who is carrying us to infamy." It was the former Minister of

Education who brought in the original Colleges and Provincial

Institutes Act, pushed it through the House and begged all sides across

this province to slow down.

Think about what you're doing.

You're taking away all of the local decision-making. You're crippling

adult education and other things. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this

amendment carries that one step further: local input is again reduced.

Now the minister has personal charge of each and every college. The

appointments that the minister makes are not arm's length appointments

on these boards; they're order-in-council appointments. And a two-year

appointment is no longer lasting than the minister's pleasure or the

pleasure of the government. That order-in-council can be rescinded a

month later if, in fact, the government has decided that they're not

being well served by the appointment.

MR. LAUK: Politburo.

MR. COCKE:

My colleague says: "Politburo." He's being a little rough, but this is

the kind of elitism that we see coming from this government, who

falsely identified themselves as people who were dedicated to the

principle of decentralization. We have never seen a government more

contradictory to its own proposed policy. Oh, don't we remember that

seagull flying around on those ads and in the papers. We saw the

seagull, the symbol of freedom. Instead of the symbol of freedom, what

we're getting from this government is a centralized authority — as

shown here again today in Bill 15 — to further command and centralize

the college system in B.C. I really think it's shocking.

The

college system was started to really give emphasis to community

response. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's been further de-emphasized. I watch

the frustrations around the college in my area, Douglas College. I

watch the frustrations of a college that's being moved around, shifted

around, forced to play the game the way the government decides. Oh, I

know we have some lofty thinkers out of UBC who have a great deal to do

with the college system now because of their access through the

Universities Council. I suggest that the former Minister of Education

decided that communities were not to be trusted, local school boards

were not to be trusted; therefore they've been dealt with this way.

Now

here is a concern, here is a large critique, of good old Bill 82. On

one of the pages it says: "In much of what the bill describes and

implies with respect to government structure, there is a clear

diminution of the authority of the local level in college governance,

with which Vancouver Community College council may wish to take issue."

That diminution has accelerated.

And so, Mr. Speaker, all

the way through we're seeing what we thought would be a change in the

right direction from the new Minister of Education.... In this bill we

see him just going down the good old party line. We make the decisions

here in Victoria; we're the ones who know what's best for you. That's a

sort of Stalinist approach to things — the approach probably best

known, I would think, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland); he loves that power in his hands. But,

you know, we expected more from this new Minister of Education. We

expected a bill amending the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act to

give a little life to it, to give back to the communities an

opportunity for the input that they deserve. But this forever takes

away any kind of real access to decision-making. You know, Mr. Speaker,

the original bill.... We had so many councils and so many ministerial

appointments in terms of the distribution of money, etc., that it was

very difficult to have community input. Now it's become impossible.

Mr.

Speaker, I certainly can't deal with every college in the province and

how they feel about it. As the education critic indicated, he's getting

letters from everywhere. I know they must be terribly frustrated. But

they're getting used to it and that's a shame. I've often wondered why

it was, when we were government, we had so many people giving us strong

advice. Then it suddenly occurred to me. That criticism was because

they knew they could criticize safely. This government can't be

criticized safely. Any time you criticize that government you find that

you've been reduced in terms of your power. Any time you see this

government under threat, the threat is then removed by taking away the

access to decision-making. It is the Stalinist approach.

During

that 1977 debacle we had councils, college teachers, students and

people coming into this building from all over this province, pleading,

giving recommendations, suggesting changes that could be made that

would make that bill at that time a little more viable. No, the advice

wasn't

[ Page 2443 ]

taken.

They let three years go by and what are we faced with now? More of the

same. I really think it's a shame. I really do. I guess there's not

much point in going over the old times, but I just want you to remember

one thing. Remember Friday, August 5? We were in the heat of summer

that year. That was rather a long session.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Wait till this one's over.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Agriculture, who just sold out to Cargill, says: "Wait until this one's over." He's quite right.

But,

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, August 5, BCIT asked to be left out of the

colleges act. They didn't do that lightly. They did that because of the

fact that they had no confidence in the legislation. They would rather

remain under the old system. Now we've got more centralization of

authority. I realize that there are some amendments here that have some

value, but that basic amendment is where this government's head is at.

I am really sorry, and I would hope that the minister will possibly

repent before it's too late, before this bill is proclaimed. If he

does, he will gain a good deal of respect from the whole community. If

he doesn't, he is going to be placed in the same category as his

predecessor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat II.

MR. COCKE:

My heavenly days! That's a lot, you know, Mr. Speaker, and we shouldn't

let any minister have to face that kind of prospect. There's no reason

why he should have to take that kind of a reputation into the

community. As a matter of fact, we'll keep his secret. We will. Just

like the member for Vancouver Centre says, we'll make sure that no bad

news gets out — about him, providing he forsakes the leadership of the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

who sits on his throne dictating energy policy and health policy.

Bill

15 must be unacceptable to us in principle just because of this kind of

arrogance and this type of approach. I could not go back to my

community and hold my head up if I had voted for more centralization in

Victoria. With good reason, my community says: we don't trust this

government to make all the decisions. I second that, Mr. Speaker. I

don't either. I don't think they should.

MR. LEGGATT:

I wanted to, first of all, tell the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

a story about Douglas College. I was one of the founding members of

Douglas College and spent some nine years on our local school board. It

directly concerns the amendment that the minister is attempting to pass

this afternoon in terms of the composition of those boards.

When

Douglas College was originally envisaged, the local representatives, in

their wisdom, decided that the proper approach was to create two

colleges, one on the south side of the Fraser River and the other on

the north. At that time — that was after a great deal of local

discussion and democratic input — the provincial government and the

Minister of Education, in his wisdom, rejected that proposal. They

decided we needed one college and administration covering both the

north and south of the Fraser River. Today the ministry is about to

create two new colleges, one on the north side and one on the south

side, exactly as was recommended by the local representatives at that

time. The reason I bring that to the minister's attention, and he is

well aware of it, is the strength of local representation. Those were

people who were not appointed from Victoria; they were elected and

responsible to the voters of their community. For the minister to stand

in his place and say these are some minor changes, and to issue a press

release which says "minor improvements in the form of housekeeping

amendments" is the closest the minister has ever come to a con.

regret to use very much rhetoric, because the minister is new in his

portfolio. He's still on a honeymoon. The honeymoon period always goes

on for the first few months, but it's coming to a shattering conclusion

for the minister. The honeymoon is really over. This is the first

serious spat the minister is going to have with people who are

interested in education. You can't get away with coming in front of

this House and calling it a "minor improvement" or ''polishing and

housekeeping." This goes to the very root of how we run the community

college system. It's absolutely fundamental and it won't wash to say:

"Oh, but we're paying the shot now. We're paying 100 percent of the

operation of colleges. Therefore we have the right to have a majority

on every single college board in the province of British Columbia."

That won't wash.

First of all, every homeowner in the

province knows that his school taxes have not gone down. In fact,

they've gone up. All that's happened is that there's been a little

juggling going on and they've taken from Peter to pay Paul. The reality

is that while they were shifting away the cost of regional colleges

from the local ratepayer, they simply added it on to the general cost

of running the school system. So that argument won't wash.

The

second argument, which certainly won't wash, is that just because

you're not a ratepayer and a homeowner, it doesn't mean you don't pay

taxes. The Municipal Act recognized that a long time ago and the Public

Schools Act recognizes that. Every school trustee in the province is

elected not only by homeowners but by renters and people who pay liquor

and gas tax and all the revenues that the government takes in. They

elect those school trustees not only to look after the problems

surrounding their tax on their home, but they have a general

responsibility to look after those taxpayers. Therefore they are just

as responsible on those college boards as an appointee from the

provincial government. That's the key to this. They are just as

responsible in regard to who's paying the tune and who's paying the

piper. It won't wash anymore that a provincial government says: "We're

paying the shot." Who is "we"? "We" are the taxpayers of every

municipality and school district in the province of British Columbia.

They are entitled by right to have a majority on every community

college in the province of British Columbia. It's that simple.

The

arguments that the minister has heard today about centralization are

valid arguments. They are arguments which are unassailable. This is a

major change in the philosophy of the community colleges as they were

envisioned. When we envisioned Douglas College, we saw a certain

resistance in the community of Simon Fraser at that time. Simon Fraser

was in a state of some protest and unrest, and a good number of people

said: "Well, we'd like a college that maybe reflects more of what we

were concerned about — more of our day-to-day concerns." That college

has fulfilled that role very well indeed. In fact, all of the community

colleges are remarkably popular in this province. They've

[ Page 2444 ]

done a su perb job of reflecting the values of the local community.

The

minister is about to destroy that fantastic record. He is about to take

away the democratic aspect of the operation of those colleges. And he

calls it a minor improvement? "It's a little polishing — a little

refining." It's a little bit like the polishing and refining that was

done to J.F. Kennedy in Dallas. This is a very serious amendment. It's

an amendment which in fact changes the kind of philosophy that those

who initiated the community college system had. It's about to make it

an elitist, centralized, government-knows-best community college system.

urge the minister to rethink this bill. I urge him to at least withdraw

this amendment and have another look at it. You can have your bill and

all the other amendments today. There's no problem. But I would

seriously urge, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister reconsider

this very serious amendment, because it's not the first. I don't really

believe the minister adopts the centralist philosophy. I haven't heard

him promoting the county system which the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

continually promote. This is the first time I've been aware that this

minister is a centralist. Because in general his appointment was well

received; there was a feeling that he understood that we wanted

democratic input into the community college system.

Look at

the direction it's gone. We had resource boards in British Columbia;

they're gone. If you took at a bill that's coming up, the liquor act,

you'll find that here again the minister's going to make the final

decision about liquor licences; that's centralization, big government.

ELUC: what happened to the Land Commission? You find now that the

cabinet makes the final decision. We don't trust those people out there

to make decisions about their own affairs; we're going to make them for

you. Mr. Speaker, the people in this province are going to make a

decision in the next election that they would rather run their own

affairs than have someone else do it for them.

No, Mr.

Speaker, these are not minor amendments. They are not refining and

polishing. They are an attempt, in a very low-key, modest approach by

the minister.... I could hardly hear him, in fact, when he introduced

the bill. This bill seemed so insignificant; I think he hoped that

everybody would go fast asleep and watch it slip right through. It's a

watershed in terms of education in the province of British Columbia,

and the minister's going to rue the day that he decided to grab control

of community colleges from the democratically elected representatives.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was in

better humour today, having had some Grecian Formula for lunch, and I

thought that he was in very, very good form. He was very amusing. He

read passages of a speech that I made to some school trustees, and he

read it two or three times, which I thank him for.

Mr.

Speaker, there's a great difference between the funding and the

operation of the public school system and the post-secondary college

system. I am somewhat amused to see all the expressions opposite of

tremendous profession of faith in decentralization. I do not recall

that same faith in decentralization and local decision-making when they

demolished and obliterated municipalities in this province by

amalgamating them against their wish.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense. That is known as a red herring.

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, it isn't. It was not a red herring in my constituency. In my

constituency they're still terrified of your getting back and wiping

them out — which you'd do, too.

MR. LEGGATT: Yours is the last one.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Listen, they'd be down here with their knitting needles camped at the

building for a month if you got back in, to stop you from your

perfidious designs.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I would ask the Speaker to consider that the word "perfidious"

is offensive, and I would ask the Speaker to order the minister to

substitute "democratic and beneficial."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair could ask the member to withdraw if the member finds the word "perfidious".... Would the minister withdraw.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes. I'm delighted that he's able to translate the meaning of it. But I

certainly will withdraw it. It wasn't intended to be offensive.

MR. LAUK: There's an another elitist statement. Do you think you're the only one that reads a book?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, the only one who had to take Latin.

few points in

summary, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I just wanted to

dispel the myth that somehow this bill is going to destroy the regional

character of community colleges. All the members of the board,

appointed either by the minister or school boards, will live in the

region, or be associated with the region or the college.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

HON. MR. SMITH: That is true.

MR. LAUK: It's not in the act.

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, it isn't, but there have not been any appointments where they

haven't either resided in or had an association with the institution.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to make an amendment?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

That's

the first thing: they are and they will be regional boards. The

provincial institutes — all the appointments of those are made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Also, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the

school boards do not have to and have not always appointed elected

trustees. They can appoint a non-elected person to their boards.

Usually they do appoint elected trustees, but sometimes they don't.

There

is absolutely no eradication of local decision-making in this act. For

about six weeks I have discussed the proposed amendments in meetings

with individual college boards, new college board members and with

various associations. I answered questions on this section.

[ Page

2445 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: With your appointees?

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, they're not. There has barely been a ripple of opposition to this

provision. Some of them don't like it. B.C. school trustees passed a

resolution. I discussed that provision at their annual meeting. I

discussed it with them in a lengthy question period, and many of them

told me afterwards that they thought it was an acceptable change.

think what is really so distressing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the

remarks made by these gentlemen opposite there wasn't one indication of

any constructive grasp of post-secondary education. They're fastening

on this: that this one change is destroying the regional nature of

colleges and flying in the face of democracy. It's very, very

unconstructive — what we're used to.

In response to what the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said about the institution in

his riding, the plans for that institution were made only after

extensive consultation with the president of the University of Victoria

and also with the board of Selkirk College. I believe, from his

remarks, that he supports the new proposals for that institution. I

really can't imagine how he thinks that would come about without a

great deal of consultation — which it did.

Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to pass on to the president of the university

the negative point of view of the member for that area, who never

approached me and requested that anything be done for the institution

in his riding. We did something regardless of his input.

summary on this bill, apart from the one criticism we've heard, there

have been no constructive remarks. Apparently the other sections are

acceptable. I move the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 21

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Passarell

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

15, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

We have in the galleries with us this afternoon Reverend Ron Lindsay, a

constituent, and Ms. Marguerite Shigehiro, community recreationist. I

would like to have the House welcome them this afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LAUK:

I am just getting the bill out, Mr. Chairman, so the government doesn't

pull a fast one here. I rise to point out that the deputy minister has

now arrived. Looking at him and the way the light is shining down upon

him, I wonder if the Minister of Education can confirm that he is one

of those snowy-haired officials to whom he referred in his speech.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LAUK:

Section 2 allows the cabinet to provide a greater or lesser amount for

indemnity to board members. Why does the minister think it's wise not

to have a limit stated in the act? We can see some problems with the

cabinet having power over the indemnity of board officials. It can be

changed at their whim, rather than have it set by the Legislature.

HON. MR. SMITH:

There are three different ways of handling the indemnity question. One

is to simply increase a blanket amount, prescribing it across the

board. The act now has $2,000.

The second way would be to

set some guidelines for setting the indemnities based on geography and

population — the number of students in the district — something like

that.

The third way would be to say to the districts: "You set your own." Those are generally the three ways that it could be done.

What

I said to the trustees was that I'm not really wedded to any one of

those approaches. I would like to hear what you have to say. In answer

to the member, I really haven't decided what approach to recommend to

cabinet. It was felt that by doing it this way there would be that

flexibility in time for consultation. But if the member has any

suggestions as to how this would be done, I would certainly appreciate

it.

MR. LAUK: I'm not saying this minister would ever be found guilty of such a practice, but with the vagaries and

[ Page 2446 ]

exigencies

of political office and systems, would it not be possible for a

Minister of Education to misuse this

section and punish a particular

school board? The minister has just stated to this committee that the

limitations on the amount of indemnity and the conditions that would be

requisite for the receiving of the indemnity would be set by

order-in-council. What if some future malevolent Minister of Education,

who wishes to punish a school board for its misbehaviour or

disobedience, sets conditions and limitations on that particular school

board that will discourage them and be an interference in the

democratic process? I would argue that no conditions be set, that that

be eliminated from the section, that a limitation that is uniform be

set in the act and not at the whim or fancy of a cabinet that can use

this provision to punish an errant — in their view — school board.

Could

the minister respond to that? Why has he given himself this flexibility

except with that spectre, that Sword of Damocles, hanging over school

board trustees who want to be independent of control from Victoria? But

you control the purse strings and the conditions, and I think you

should just set a uniform limit for all school boards and keep the

provincial government's nose out of that.

HON. MR. SMITH:

It certainly would be much easier. I understood from my discussions

with them that this is what they wanted me to do so they could make a

varying number of recommendations.

MR. LAUK: Well,

that's not good enough. You didn't talk to all the school board

trustees, and you have a responsibility to the province as a whole. It

may be they did not see the problem here, but I can see a serious

problem.

MR. HANSON: The carrot and the stick routine.

MR. LAUK:

That's right. These are elected officials at the local level. There

should be no suggestion in the School Act that they can be whipsawed by

any cabinet — yours or ours or whatever.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LAUK:

Could the minister explain

section 12? The amendments to sections 143

and 144 are puzzling to me. This repeals a requirement for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to approve rules for Teachers'

Federation fees and bylaw changes. Was that requested by the

federation? I don't think it was.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, it is very confusing for Hansard . The first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

The minister has indicated yes. Well, I'm instructed by the B.C.

Teachers' Federation that they did not request the change, and the

puzzling

part is....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the bylaw changes will still have to be presented for

acceptance to the registrar of companies. Anyway, I just wondered why there

was the change. It seems to me a fairly good change from one point of view,

but is there some explanation why the minister has gone this far?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes. Not only did they request it, but at the first meeting I had with

the president and the executive they brought it up. They felt it was a

very demeaning thing that all these bylaws had to await government

approval each time they changed them. I must say that looking at their

bylaws and the kind of activity they had, I really felt it was quite

out of place to have the government approving every one, so I readily

recommended it to my colleagues. But they asked for it both verbally

and in correspondence.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, again I want to strongly point out to the Minister of

Education that these are minuscule amendments to the act. The title

School Amendment Act gives the image that substantial revisions to the

School Act are underway. It ignores the major recommendations of the

Evans report; it ignores the major recommendations of the Teachers'

Federation and school trustees and the resolutions over the years, and

it ignores the modern society we live in. For the minister to use an

excuse that he's still wet behind his ears is no longer going to wash.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 20, School Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 6, Forest and Range Resource Fund Act, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AND RANGE RESOURCE FUND ACT

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Forests Act passed by this Legislature in

1978 required that by this session of the Legislature a complete

analysis of the state of the forest and range resource, together with a

five-year management program, be presented to this Legislature. That

required that this program and resource analysis be first presented to

the government; following that it was tabled in this House on March 14

of this year, two months ago.

That resource analysis, Mr.

Speaker, indicated very clearly that in British Columbia we are

beginning to come to the end of our old-growth timber, and that we are

beginning to make the transition from the liquidation of old-growth

timber stands to the management and harvesting of second-growth stands.

This has happened in every forest jurisdiction in the world and it will

happen in those in which it has not yet happened. When this takes place

there is a falldown effect,

[ Page

2447 ]

and that falldown effect is simply the fact that an

acre of forest land can produce a much higher volume of wood if the

wood is allowed to accumulate over centuries, as has been the case with

our old-growth forests. When we move to a second-growth stand, the

harvesting will be done in anywhere from 40 to perhaps 100 years, and

the volume per acre will be much less under normal unassisted

conditions.

Another problem that this resource analysis

indicated to us is that there is a constant reduction taking place in

the area of forest land in British Columbia that we can manage for

timber production. These two factors, a natural falldown effect and the

reduction of our forest land base, made it very clear that the province

of British Columbia must do much, much more in the future in order to

be able to produce more wood on less forest land. That led to the

presentation of the program to the government, its acceptance by the

government and presentation to the Legislature. This program lays out

those things which must be done in the years to come if we are to avoid

significant falldowns in the forest harvest available to our very

important forest industry in British Columbia.

As you will

recall, and as you know by the budget before this House now, the

Ministry of Forests will be substantially increasing the moneys

allocated to it over the next five-year period by an amount equal to

about 34 percent in 1980 dollars. We will be substantially increasing

funding in forest management areas, in intensive and basic

silviculture, in planting, in protection and in other areas where

benefits can be realized with the result of increased timber yield from

the forest land base we have left. We will be making substantial

increases to the areas that we plant, areas where we do

site-preparation work, and areas where we do management work such as

brushing, weeding, spacing, thinning, fertilization — the many things

that can be done to increase the yield from our forests above that

which would take place from a natural stand.

In order to

assure a continuation of funding over the years, and especially during

those parts of the years which, for reasons set down long before, were

the transition period between fiscal years in government, we are making

provision in this bill for $146.6 million to be used over a five-year

period to provide this continuity of funding for forest management

work. Many such programs are ongoing year by year — the growing of

seedlings, the tending of stems....

All the silvicultural

techniques we use are not things that we can start and stop year by

year; there must be assurance that funding will continue through the

years and will actually, in our case, increase through the years.

this bill is a part of a more fully realized commitment of this

government to the need to invest more and more money in this very

important forest resource, which leads to more and more work by many

hundreds and hundreds of British Columbians in the management of this

resource. The forests that we had in the past were left to us by

nature. They have been used by successive governments in this province

for the purposes of developing our economy and our social measures.

But, as I mentioned earlier, the luxury of these old-growth forests is

now becoming a thing of the past and we must begin to manage

second-growth forests. We will get out of our forests in the future no

more than we put into them. To a large extent we have already used that

vast storehouse of timber which was left to us by nature, and now it's

up to us.

This government has made a commitment in accepting the five-year management

program. This bill before us today is a part of that commitment. a part that

will assure that this funding will not be intermittent but will be continuous

and will give the Forests ministry, in cooperation with the private sector,

the opportunity and the chance to do an excellent job in forest management.

In British Columbia we have already done a better job than any other area in

Canada. With this bill before the Legislature, with the program that we have

presented to the Legislature, in a very short number of years British Columbia

will lead the world in its ability to manage its forests. In that way we can

assure future generations of British Columbians a heritage of a forest resource

which will be passed on to them in at least as good condition as we found it.

Hopefully, as we go on, we will be able to leave them a forest resource in much,

much better condition than we found it — not only for our industry but for the

total multi-use of the forest land base.

I'm

sure the opposition recognize the importance of forest management and

that they will support this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that

the bill be now read a second time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING:

I want to assure the minister that the opposition will be supporting

this bill. However, I do have some criticisms of it in terms of the

adequacy of the allocation in meeting the needs of greatly increased

intensive forest management in the province of British Columbia. I

seriously question whether or not an allocation of $146.6 million

spread over a five-year period even comes close to meeting the kind of

intensive forest management that is required in the province. That

means that we have the expenditure of somewhat less than $30 million a

year.

The minister has made reference to the resource

analysis that was compiled by his ministry. As I indicated earlier when

the report was released, it is a very thorough and comprehensive

document, giving an outline of the state of health of the forest

industry in British Columbia. In fact, it's a very good piece of

technical work. But I'm more concerned with the translation of that

resource analysis into the five-year plan which the minister referred

to. The five-year plan is a pretty pale 30-page document,

whereas the

resource analysis is something like 1,200 or 1,400 pages. The five-year

plan which the minister has introduced, and on which this bill before

the House is based, in no way amplifies the kind of approach necessary

to catch up with the backlog of understocked forest land in the

province of British Columbia, much less to catch up with that backlog

and keep pace with the clearcutting that goes on each and every year.

know that there is some natural regeneration. But because much of the

land that has been logged in the past five or ten years has not been

tended properly in terms of site preparation and replanting, it has

been overtaken by a variety of weed species in the forest industry,

such as alder, birch and other non-merchantable timber, or very

low-value merchantable timber. Accordingly, now the cost of recovering

those areas as productive forest land is very, very high, if not

prohibitive. I honestly feel that the allocation in the bill before the

Legislature at this time is woefully inadequate in terms of coming to

grips with the kind of falldown in the forest resource that we can

anticipate and which is acknowledged in the resource analysis. We are

looking at pretty major curtailments of operation in the forest

industry of logging and manufacturing and job creation. Unless we're

[ Page 2448 ]

prepared

to give major economic priority to the need to start regenerating our

forests at a faster pace now, then that falldown and the negative

impact on the economy is certainly going to be exacerbated.

There

are a whole variety of other things here that bother me. I'm

disappointed that the minister has brought this allocation forward

without providing any specific program as to how this money is going to

be expended. Talking about intensive forest management and talking

about silviculture today is like talking about motherhood; everyone

believes in it. But without identification of the site-specific plans

for expending this money and for increasing the nursery capacity in the

province to grow enough seedlings to keep pace and to catch up with our

backlog of NSR land, we are in effect writing a blank cheque to the

minister. When we start to expend the kinds of sums that should be

expended to ensure that our forests are going to be a perpetual source

of resources to our province, certainly there should be a more specific

program than what the minister has introduced either in his five-year

plan or in the statute before the House at this time. He's asking us to

accept on faith the allocation of $30 million a year for the next five

years without outlining any specific areas to which he intends to apply

these funds for regeneration, for intensive management. I don't think

that's good enough. I think that's rather irresponsible, quite frankly.

Another

concern I have is that the whole Ministry of Forests is now — and, I

believe, has been traditionally — oriented to protection of the forests

from fire hazard and from infestation of various forms of pests; and,

of course, that's important. But what usually happens is that when the

time is appropriate for restocking the forests, the allocations are

made and the crews hired to go out and prepare sites for planting

seedlings, it's usually coincident with the high-risk, high-hazard fire

season. Of course, when fires do occur, then everything in the regional

offices of the ministry is geared toward dealing with that fire hazard

— and the replanting crews. I suspect that in many cases a good deal of

their budget is directed toward fighting wildfires, rather than giving

the continuity of priority to the regeneration program which should be

an ongoing factor of the ministry's policy.

That's the kind

of thing that has happened around the various regions within the

ministry, and I think the minister must be aware of that. Certainly I

have talked to regional staff in many areas of the province and they

confirm that that's the case. I think that the minister should be

prepared to give a very, very strong political statement, indicating

that he requires major priority to be laid on continuity in this very

real crisis of regeneration of our forest crops in British Columbia,

and should not be deterred from it even for fire hazard risks and so

on. For those purposes, new staff, equipment, facilities and budgetary

allocations should be made as required ' without diminishing the

efforts of the regeneration staff and facilities in the ministry.

I have some great problems, though, with this proposition that intensive forest

management is going to curtail the falldown in the timber supply that is predicted

in the resource report. If we get involved in regeneration in a very, very major

way, that certainly involves more research on the most appropriate species —

supertrees, as they are called, which have a better chance of withstanding disease

and maturing — and it involves major allocations for site preparation, increased

nursery capacity, juvenile thinning and spacing, probably fertilization in some

cases, and commercial thinning at a later date — 30 years down the road. It's

a major investment.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it was very, very irresponsible of the ministry to

recognize all of these needs and provide no specifies in terms of the

areas that the ministry intends to apply this in — not even a vestige

of a cost-benefit analysis of what we expect to capture from this huge

public investment, and nothing but a vague promise that this kind of

investment applied now in a scattergun approach — because we're

throwing a lot of money at it — is going to ease the shortage of timber

supply, which his own report predicts five, ten or fifteen years down

the road. The average rotation time — as the minister has pointed out

in his opening remarks — is 40 to 100 years to mature a tree in the

province of British Columbia, depending on the particular part of the

province, elevation, terrain and so on. How a major regeneration and

intensive management plan instituted now is going to result in

maintaining the level of annual allowable cut — which the ministry

apparently intends to do, and in some cases increase — when we're

looking at reaping the rewards of this investment at least 40 years

down the road, escapes me completely. We are asked to accept as a

matter of trust that this kind of allocation — which, as I indicated

earlier, I don't think is enough — is going to be wisely spent, even

though it's not indicated where the priorities lie, what kind of cost

controls are going to be involved, what kind of approach is going to be

taken to any cost-benefit analysis initially, five years down the road,

or ten years hence. I want to suggest that that is a pretty haphazard

way of approaching what is admittedly a much-needed area of attention

in the province of British Columbia.

I am not a professional

forester, nor is the minister. I know that he has to proceed on the

basis of advice that he receives from his staff. Certainly, in trying

to offer some intelligent criticism of the forest policy, I seek out

the advice of professional people, professional foresters, people

involved in the industry, and people involved in other uses of forest

land — the environmental concerns, fisheries, trade unions involved in

the forest industry, and so on — so that we can get some kind of

balanced approach to understanding where we're at with the forest

industry and what kind of approach is needed. I've received some pretty

devastating criticisms of the five-year plan from people in the

industry and a variety of other interested parties, some of whom are

professional foresters.

This may not be the most appropriate

bill to discuss all those criticisms under. I would have liked an

opportunity to discuss them more fully in second reading and in

committee stage on another bill that is before the House, but that

opportunity seems to have eluded me so I am going to serve notice on

the minister that I am going to be asking a variety of very particular

and precise questions in the committee consideration of both the bills

that are before the House. I very much hope that the minister is able

to offer to the House some particulars on precisely how this money is

going to be spent. What kind of cost-benefit analysis is he prepared to

put forward to justify this expenditure, rather than just the vague

notion that because our forest crop is dwindling we have to throw money

at it? The public will accept that. The public is prepared to invest

but the public also has a right to insist — and certainly the

opposition must insist — that that money is well spent on intelligent

programs that do, in fact, achieve the benefits that that investment is

designed to bring.

That's what is absent in the approach the minister has taken thus far. As I indicated at the outset, I don't think that

[ Page

2449 ]

$30 million a year is nearly enough to restock the

backlog of NSR land in the province. I think it's somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 1.8 million acres that are inadequately restocked.

That's a gigantic piece of real estate in the province of British

Columbia, to say nothing of the — what is it? — 75 million cunits that

are cut annually, most of it clearcut. It's somewhere in that area

anyways — a very large amount. I see no way that $30 million is going

to come to grips with meeting that backlog and avoiding a very much

more serious falldown in timber supply in the intermediate period of

ten to 20 years. I don't think that I should have to point out to the

minister and the government that the economy of British Columbia simply

cannot afford to anticipate that kind of curtailment of the economic

mainstay of our province.

I am also very apprehensive about

certain provisions which I seem to see both in the five-year plan and

in legislation that is before the House now, which would indicate an

increase in the annual allowable cut. I am very much concerned about

the withdrawal of vast tracts of forest land from the forest inventory,

apparently with the wave of a wand, and with no explanation. I think in

the Vancouver forest district we have something like.... Productive

forest land, which is defined as the base for allowable annual cut, is

reported as 3.8 million hectares. This excludes substantial acreages of

private forest land which are also part of the base.

There

appears to be a reduction of 26 percent, from the statistics the

ministry supplied to the royal commission in 1975. Where did that land

go? A reduction of 26 percent in the forest land base for the Vancouver

forest district? That is a major discrepancy between the statistics

supplied by the Ministry of Forests to the Pearse royal commission just

five years ago, and what the ministry tells us the forest land base is

now. What happened to that land? To suggest that that kind of reduction

in our forest land base can occur, without some detailed explanation,

is a very serious matter, and it leads me to question whether the

ministry really has any handle on what is going on, particularly in the

inventory

section of the ministry.

I think it is indicated

that a deduction of 16 percent is obtained by classifying 600,000

hectares as economically inaccessible, or protection forest.

Withdrawals removed 36 percent of productive forest land in the Prince

Rupert region, or 1.2 million hectares. For what, Mr. Minister? These

are the kinds of things that have been inadequately explained. I think

in total 1.8 million hectares have been arbitrarily withdrawn from the

resource supply base for the coastal industry. This is about 4.4

million acres, equal to double the land area on the east half of

Vancouver Island from Victoria to Campbell River.

Before we

allocate $146 million to the minister to apply to intensive forest

management, I think it would be useful to know that this minister and

his administration are capable of protecting the integrity of the

forest land base. This kind of arbitrary exclusion of thousands and

thousands of acres of productive forest land without any vestige of

explanation whatsoever is completely unacceptable to me.

These

are the kinds of things that lead me to have some grave reservations

about voting any amount of money to this minister without a specific

program on the table before the House so that we can be assured that

the taxpayers' money is going to be spent wisely and bear a realistic

return in terms of our investment in the forests.

I want to

say that as far as I am concerned this is the only source of new

funding being provided to the ministry for intensive forest management,

The minister indicates in his five-year plan that there are other

sources of funding available. I reject that. I think the other sources

of funds that had been identified are simply arrived at by a

manipulation of the bookkeeping procedures. That is, the ministry's

total budget has been multiplied on a five-year basis and it's

suggested that that large amount achieved and obtained by adding up the

ministry's normal budget over a five-year period is available for

intensive forest management too. That's a bit of a sham and a mockery,

Mr. Speaker. Obviously, that