1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1397 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Repainting of buses. Mr. Macdonald –– 1397

Govier report. Mr. Lauk –– 1397

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 1398

Transfer of Sunmask shares prior to presentation of budget. Mr. Howard –– 1398

Increase in log exports. Mr. Skelly –– 1398

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill M201). Third reading.

Division –– 1399

An Act to Provide for No Smoking Areas in Public Places (M205). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1399

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College (Bill 401). Second reading.

Mr. Campbell –– 1399

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1399

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich)

Section 1 –– 1400

Mr. Veitch

Mrs. Dailly

section 3 –– 1401

Mr. Rose

section 4 –– 1403

Mr. Rose

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 1405

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Cocke

section 4 –– 1408

Mr. Howard

Mr. Rose

section 5 –– 1410

Mr. Rose

On the amendment to

section 5 –– 1410

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hanson

section 15 –– 1412

Mr. Howard

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

section 3 –– 1413

Mr. Cocke

section 7 –– 1414

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 1414

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 1415

Mrs. Dailly –– 1418

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make

welcome today one of my constituents from West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

and also the wife of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, Cheri Ree.

Also in the gallery today, as a very pleasant surprise to me, are my

aunt and uncle, Mary and Steve Osachuk, who arrived from Barrie,

Ontario, today. I'd like the House to make them and my cousin Paul and

his girlfriend Mary, who are now living in Burnaby, welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, sitting in the members' gallery today

is the vice-president of the New Democratic Party of B.C., Johanna den

Hertog. I would like the House to welcome her.

Oral Questions

REPAINTING OF BUSES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Human Resources. B.C. Transit, red, white and blue — Socred

colours. Don't miss the bus! Penticton, for example, just let a tender

in July to have their fleet repainted red, white and blue. How many

buses are being repainted in those Socred colours? I'll forget that

part if you want me to. The minister takes umbrage so easily, I almost

daren't say it. How many are you doing? And what's the cost per bus?

You've had a lot of tenders — Prince George, Penticton.... How much?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to bring

that information back to the House. I'm not aware of the Penticton

contract, but any contract by any of the member bus services of B.C.

Transit will be painted and repainted on an as-needs basis for

maintenance, just as all bus systems would have to do. I'd be very

pleased to bring the answer to the member's question back. I understand

it to be the cost of the Penticton contract, plus the cost of per-bus

repaint job. I would be pleased to bring that back to the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Also, how

many B.C. Transit buses are due for repainting? The Penticton fleet is

almost new, so that business.... In Prince George $32,000 was spent for

11 buses, which means over $3,000 a bus.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to

confirm the figures, because I am not privy to the details of each of

the systems. But we are very pleased with the fact that in the past

four years almost 25 systems have been produced by this government

throughout the province to ensure that people will have an excellent

bus service, and not just one that is confined to the lower mainland.

We are also pleased that the handicapped bus service is probably the

best in this nation. I will bring back the information.

MR. MACDONALD: Would the minister confirm that you're spending more

than $1 million on this, and that B.C. Transit, in the various centres, is raising

bus fares which could very well be held down if you weren't wasting this

money on political propaganda?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the

assumption that the member wishes to put on the repainting of buses. I

would think that even the maintenance of his own personal automobile

would include repainting once in a while.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mind you, I don't know the state of the member's car.

I am very happy to bring back the information that the member wishes; I would he pleased to do so.

GOVIER REPORT

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Prime Minister. Last

February the first minister was at a first ministers' conference on

native rights. On his return he stopped off in Calgary and had a secret

meeting with oil and gas producers there. Now we see the revelations in

the Govier report, and the Prime Minister's steadfast denials that he

was going to privatize the gas industry in British Columbia. The

propositions under the Govier report are going to substantially

increase the cost to the domestic user in B.C. and taxation to the

general public. Is it now government policy to introduce a royalty

system in all resource industries?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the question is on policy, it must be....

MR. LAUK: Is it now government policy?

MS. SANFORD: Current policy should be known.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, questions regarding policy

sometimes elicit very long answers. If we are going to ask open-ended

questions, we must be prepared for open-ended answers. I advise the

member accordingly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that last

February 1 was at the first ministers' conference on native rights in

Ottawa. Yes, I did come back via Calgary where I spoke to the chamber

of commerce. I held a number of meetings regarding investment in

British Columbia — something that this government is continually doing

in a search to create jobs for our people in the private sector.

In part of the question the member was asking me about the Govier

report, which is a report that has been submitted to the government,

after being commissioned, by Dr. Govier. That report has been released

today and the information in his report to the government, which will

be given serious consideration, will be made available and shared with

the public.

MR. LAUK: Just so the public and this House could get a

perspective on government policy, could the Premier indicate how many

of the major oil and gas firms were contributors to the Social Credit

Party's campaign funds in the last election?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would probably say about the same number that contributed to the NDP.

[ Page

1398 ]

MR. LAUK: I take it that the Premier is saying that no oil

and gas companies contributed to the Social Credit campaign funds. Is

he standing by that answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You got my answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members?

MR. LAUK: Is he going to answer the question? I think it's important that the public of the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm asking the Premier if he thinks it important

that the public of British Columbia should know whether or not these

oil and gas companies that stand to profit immensely from the Govier

report contributed to the Social Credit Party.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is once again being

frivolous. There is only one party in this province that has apparently

been up for sale, and that's the NDP. You saw who they sold out to.

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: You can depend on the Premier. Let's hope we can

direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. Will the minister advise

why a commercial distributor of magazines in British Columbia has been

awarded the right to publish Beautiful British Columbia magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the member's question is:

simply because that company submitted the best bid of all that were

filed with the government.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise what role the Jim Pattison group will play in relation to the promotion of tourism in B.C.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is none, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Good heavens, what abrogation! The minister has

said none, and yet they sold our best magazine promoting tourism in

B.C. to that group.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Question.

MR. COCKE: Don't get in a rush, Mr. Treasurer.

The promotion of tourism events in B.C. and abroad and publication of special editions of Beautiful British Columbia

in foreign languages have been a major part of the role of the magazine

in the Ministry of Tourism. Is Jim Pattison now in charge of this

aspect? The variance in language is the major role that magazine has

played. What part will this Pattison group play in that aspect of

tourism?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The successful bidders for that magazine

made it very clear that they do not intend to change the direction or

the integrity of Beautiful British Columbia

magazine; in fact, that it would continue on the very successful path

that it has had in the past in promoting the province and that it would

not contain any advertising in the foreseeable future. But there was

never intent by that company or by this government to have them set the

marketing strategy for tourism in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Is it a condition of sale, if in fact what the

minister has told us today...? Is it a condition of sale that the

government will take back that magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no.

TRANSFER OF SUNMASK SHARES

PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF BUDGET

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Finance. Has the minister decided to conduct an

investigation into the issuance by Sunmask Petroleum Corp. of some

525,000 shares from its treasury in the days immediately preceding the

introduction of the budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General a question

of a similar nature. Has he made any decision to conduct an

investigation into whether or not there was a budget leak that had an

effect upon the issuance of those particular shares, 175,000 of which

were issued to two Swiss banking institutions, in order to determine

what interest the gnomes of Zurich have in a company which holds an

option on the Spetifore property?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to that convoluted argumentative question is no.

INCREASE IN LOG EXPORTS

MR. SKELLY: My question is to the Minister of Forests, who

has been absent from the House for most of this week. The Ministry of

Forests recently reported a 67 percent increase in log exports for the

first seven months of 1983, as compared to the same period last year.

Will the minister advise us why he continues to approve the loss of

forest jobs through log exports?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's an argumentative question.

MR. SKELLY: Perhaps the minister didn't hear the question.

Again, a supplementary to the Minister of Forests. During the

January-July period of 1982 this province authorized the export of

523,000 cubic metres. In the same period, January 1 to July 31, 1983,

we are authorizing the export of 874,000 cubic metres of logs. And yet

jobs go wanting in the province of British Columbia. What action has

the minister decided to take to curb log exports and to use those logs

in manufacturing industry here in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the

conclusions reached by the member are quite incorrect. There is no

evidence that the export of small volumes of logs from British Columbia

has a detrimental effect on manufacturing activity in lumber or plywood

manufacturing, or in pulp and paper manufacturing in this province. So

as a result,

[ Page 1399 ]

we will continue to follow those procedures which

have been in place for many years regarding the control of exports of

raw logs from the province of British Columbia.

As the member well knows, there is a procedure required whereby logs

have to be offered for sale in the province. If there are no purchasers

or manufacturing concerns in the province that need them, then they are

recommended for the possibility of export by the log export advisory

committee, after which the normal procedure is that an order-in-council

is required. If the volume of logs is above 15,000 cubic metres, that

generally flows, provided there is indeed no need in British Columbia.

If the volume of logs is less than 15,000 cubic metres, that can be

authorized by an order of the minister.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call third reading of Bill M201.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MR. REE: It is now my pleasure to move third reading of this bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill M201, Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to second reading of Bill 401, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the House Leader has asked

leave to do that, but I would submit that it would be more appropriate,

Mr. Speaker, if you would proceed to deal with the adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill M205, standing in the name of my colleague for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is valid.

MR. HOWARD: It was adjourned on behalf of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and I think it would be most appropriate for

us to discuss that today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is a very valid point. My apologies to the lady member. It's marked second in my book.

MRS. WALLACE: Do I get to close debate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not yet.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

NO SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

(continued)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member for

Cowichan-Malahat apparently spoke on this bill when I was back east,

and I would like the opportunity of looking through Hansard to see what her remarks were. Until I can do that, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to second reading of Bill 401, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

AN ACT RESPECTING OKANAGAN BIBLE COLLEGE

MR. CAMPBELL: I wish to advise that this bill passed in

committee with the unanimous consent of both sides of the House. It

will give the Okanagan Bible College the power to grant theological and

honorary theological degrees. This college is interdenominational and

will accept students from other religious backgrounds. I move second

reading of the bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker. on behalf of the opposition members

who sat on the committee. I wish to add our support. I have just one or

two comments. This is a non-denominational, degree-granting

institution. It's in the spirit of ecumenical unity, which I think goes

right through the Christian church in British Columbia today.

I want to make the point, in case any members are wondering, that

this will not be an institution that competes for students with, let's

say, Regent College at UBC, which is a publicly supported institution.

That UBC operation is basically a postgraduate theological college.

What we're looking at here is a post-secondary degree-granting

theological institution. It's open to the public and, as has been

mentioned, is non-denominational. It's open to everyone of any

Christian faith. I congratulate the people throughout B.C.,

particularly the people and the churches in the Okanagan area, who have

gotten together to establish this institution.

Bill 401,

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College, 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. PARKS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker. I noticed a constituent has just

arrived in the House to observe the proceedings this afternoon. She

happens to be a friend and staunch supporter. I would ask the House to

join me in welcoming Miss Monica Woldring.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1400 ]

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, when speaking on

section 1 of this

act prior to the lunch hour, I believe we agreed that in repealing the

definitions, we were repealing the councils themselves. The hon. member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said that in repealing the councils we

would help the administration of the colleges and institutes throughout

the province. Well, I want to tell the hon. member that it will help

the students of British Columbia and the potential students that will

follow in the future even more than it will help the administration.

Prior to the adjournment I said that it was a network of inequal

opportunities. That's precisely what it is throughout the province.

Speaking directly to this section, I don't know if all the hon. members

are cognizant of what this network represents. This relates directly to

these councils that are being eliminated by this section. First of all,

under the old Adult Occupational Training Act — the new federal

National Training Act — we have a system that launders money through a

cost-sharing agreement between the provincial and the federal

governments. It's passed out, supposedly, through the college....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We've just heard

a very serious criminal charge made in this House: that members of these councils

have been laundering money. I would like to know what action is being taken

by the government in this matter, because that is a very serious criminal charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Every member in this House is responsible for his own statements.

MR. VEITCH: Hon. member, it's neither criminal nor ethnic;

anyone can launder, even the NDP. Anyone can be engaged in the process

of laundering. Even the federal government and Mr. Kube know something

about that.

Mr. Chairman, these councils that are being eliminated directly cost

the province about $30 million to administer through all the

machinations. I'm going to go very quickly through what these councils

represented. Under the two acts that I mentioned previously, we have a

tie-in between the Ministry of Education, the College and Institute Act

and schedules (

a) and (

b) of the Apprenticeship Act. We have a joint

paper that runs through the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of

Education. Under that we have the apprenticeship branch with 56 trade

advisory committees directly attendant to the training of individuals

in this province. Under the Ministry of Education, we have the ministry

and departments. We had the Management Advisory Council, with seven

subcommittees. The Academic Council had between seven and nine

subcommittees, with executive directors and staffs. In the Occupational

Training Council we had, I think, nine consultative and articulation

committees. Mr. Kube was a representative of several of them.

We have 19 joint boards that are tied into this situation, that

receive money through the various construction labour contracts being

negotiated in the province, ostensibly for the purposes of training.

Most of them have received their funding one way or another through the

Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education. We have construction

advisory committees and 14 consultant advisory committees. I think this

makes 86 or 87 committees that are tied directly to the training of one

individual before an individual could be admitted to training in this

province. So I think this is one of the best moves that this government

and this minister have made as far as post-secondary education goes. I

applaud him loudly for taking away these redundant councils and giving

the students of British Columbia an opportunity for training.

I think it's one of the most significant moves that we can ever

make. Now what we have to do in regard to these is make sure that we

don't replace these councils with something even more onerous.

I commend the minister. I think that the opposition should,

especially on this

section of this bill, give it 100 percent support,

if they are in favour — and I know they are — of education and training

of individuals in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the hon. member for

Burnaby North on

section 1, I'll remind hon. members that the topic of

this

section is also discussed in

section 24. We will presume that

discussion under

section 1 will preclude further debate, at least on

subsections (a), (

b) and (

c) of

section 24.

With that said, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm very anxious to speak on this, but I wonder if you could clarify your last remarks to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Councils are mentioned quite clearly in

section

1 and also in

section 24, so we can presume that all debate on the

councils themselves will be taken care of. There is more to

section 24

as well that can be discussed, of course.

MRS. DAILLY: That's fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the last speaker for his speech

because he has pointed out to this House and to the people of British

Columbia that the government he belongs to has wasted $30 million by

the establishment of these ridiculous councils. He just spent the last

five minutes telling this House what a disaster these councils were. He

was so pleased that the new minister was eliminating them; they cost

the taxpayers of British Columbia $30 million and even with all that

money they did not serve the students. That member left out one little

basic point in his speech. He regretted to tell the people of B.C. and

of this Legislature that it was the Social Credit government which

brought in those councils. I really don't have to speak any more

because that minister, by his own words, has condemned his own

government and the past Minister of Education, who is now the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who

manages somehow or other to get everything he wants for this

government. The only thing he didn't get, by the way, was the tunnel

under the Georgia Strait, but that may yet come.

Mr. Chairman, this government, as the NDP has pointed out to the people of

British Columbia for a number of years, has wasted the taxpayers' money,

has not served the educational system well. Now we have one of their own members

conceding that. So there is nothing more for the opposition to

[ Page 1401 ]

do at this particular time except say that it is

most unfortunate that that truth about the Social Credit government was

not expressed during the campaign by those members.

MR. VEITCH: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point

out to the hon. member that at the outset the three council idea was

not a bad concept: the Management Advisory Council, the Academic

Council and the Occupational Training Council. Unfortunately these

councils were taken over by people such as Mr. Art Kube, who was a

prime mover in that. At his urging all of these other things fell into

place and they grew like topsy. It just shows that when a socialist

gets involved with something, it costs the people of British Columbia a

lot of money, and even good ideas can be turned sour.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I just hope that the content of

section 3 doesn't also occur further down in the bill. I think that we

are entitled to debate each section, regardless of its content. I think

you would agree with me and defend my right to do that, even if it....

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: And so would the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot). Although I can't promise the Provincial Secretary that I will

be brief, I will try to be to the point and positive. Brief is not

something you ask readily of a politician, especially on a Thursday

afternoon.

I rise with particular reference to

section 3(k), lines 9 and 10 of

clause 3. For the benefit of those who tuned in late, 3(

k) allows the

minister to require institutions to avoid unnecessary duplications in

courses offered. I don't know whether that means between institutions,

among institutions, or duplication even in the same institution. That

has not been specified and it is not clear to me, but I will assume

that it means in a region. If there tends to be a proliferation of what

the minister or the department feels might be defined as the same

course, it gives the minister the power — ultimately, I guess, through

an articulation committee — to whip in there and tell the college that

they may or may not offer that program. This is a rather violent and

revolutionary departure, and a diminution of the powers of college

boards. For the first time, the minister and his department are

allowed, through this bill, to determine course offerings — not the

local needs, nothing to do with the interests of the students or the

interests of the people who live in that community. The minister alone,

I suppose as a cost-cutting measure, is to determine what courses are

to be offered by what colleges. That assumes that there may be

alternatives; that a student wishing a certain kind of program may get

it somewhere else. I don't view it as that, and I don't think we know

enough yet about how it will work. But we do know that it is an

assumption of power by the minister to determine the course offerings

of a community college, and to my knowledge this is the first time that

has ever happened.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I said it was to my knowledge. How can I be wrong

about that? It provides the minister with the authority.... If it

hasn't happened before, he doesn't need the clause, as far as I am

concerned. It is a simple proposition.

In the urge to cut course offerings, it will eventually — or could

possibly, maybe even probably — allow the minister to cut the number of

academic courses offered if, in the minister's view, the academic

courses offered didn't necessarily.... There are studies to show that

this has not happened, that people who take academic transfer programs

do not always transfer. They may take these courses for their own

interest, their own well-being, their own broadening and education. I

think one of the things we have prided ourselves on in British Columbia

is that education isn't considered to be a one-shot thing anymore, nor

should it be in a modern technological society, but is something to

which a person has continuous access during his lifetime.

I am saying that under (

k) the minister potentially has the power to

determine whether or not courses will be offered, or the power to close

down courses and no longer offer them, or to order them to be offered.

I don't think that is an appropriate power for a central authority. It

may be a power desired by a central authority, but it isn't necessarily

justified just because the central authority may wish the power. Some

people have concerned themselves about this problem by suggesting that

if these course offerings are duplications or whatever, it gives the

minister the power to avoid duplications. It sounds only reasonable if

these courses are offered and there is nobody in them, if nobody really

wants them but they are offered. I don't know if there is any proof for

that, any statistics to back this up. I think what will happen is that

the number of course offerings will be reduced. They are not going to

be increased. The minister isn't going to go in there and add anything.

Under (

k) the minister has the power to take away. The Lord will taketh

away if he feels like it, whatever the pressures of restraint upon him

at the moment and how he reacts to those pressures.

There is a trend to this centralized control, which I think can have

institutions. Perhaps some things might be said about what these

effects could possible be. Professor John Dennison of UBC, who has

addressed himself to this problem, makes a number of rather profound

and intelligent comments. His major point is that "allocation and

reallocation of programs by the ministry on a provincial and-or

regional basis will effectively eliminate participation for a large

number of students, particularly mature students." Why? you ask. Well,

Prof. Dennison says that recent studies indicate that the vast majority

of these individuals are not geographically mobile. So it follows — as

night follows day, as they say — that if someone who is not

geographically mobile wants a particular kind of course to provide

himself with the prerequisites, or for whatever reason, and that course

is denied in that region, if he's stuck housebound in a particular

place, he doesn't have the course. Which means your access is limited.

I don't think I need to pound that one any further. It's pretty clear.

I think that's one of the things that concern people when the minister

gives himself or takes unto himself the power, as he does under 3(k),

"to require institutions to avoid unnecessary duplication of courses."

In the past we've had satellite campuses, which even improve the

opportunities for people to have access. Satellite campuses given in

the various high schools provide that kind

[ Page 1402 ]

of access in areas that may not have highly

advanced transportation systems. A member of my own family is now

working in Vancouver, and it takes about an hour to get there by bus.

That's about 30 miles away from where that family lives. She was

offered another job about 5 or 10 miles away from where she lives, and

it's going to take her two and a half hours, because it's not on a bus

route. So if you eliminate a satellite campus or a course offering,

what you're doing is cutting down on access for housebound people, or

people who do not have the transportation facilities that they might

need.

There are other ways, I suppose, that that problem might be

addressed. There's distance learning. There's the Knowledge Network and

other matters such as that. But this doesn't always work for all

students. I think a student has to be highly motivated in order to have

the discipline to put himself down to work without personal attention.

Knowledge coming from the television set or some other package such as

correspondence courses will certainly work for the highly disciplined

mature student, but certainly does not meet the psychologicai needs of

some others, and students who need that personal attention by an

instructor. They're stopgaps. They may have some remarkable successes.

Nobody would suggest that the Open Learning Institute of Britain wasn't

a remarkable success; it met the needs of many. But nobody suggested

that they should shut down the schools and universities merely because

they had it. That was the frosting on the cake.

A further example of how this form of learning may not be the be-all and end-all, but only a cheap compromise.... Not

that you shouldn't use high technology, but about 10 or 15 years ago in

education we had a real trendy thing: it was called a teaching machine.

It was based on the work of one psychologist by the name of Skinner,

who worked with pigeons. Mr. Skinner's efforts with pigeons worked out

very well. He could teach pigeons to peck for grain all over the place

in very intricate patterns. Various kinds of pecking pigeons were on

display at such places as the Seattle World's Fair. Naturally the

pecking pigeons had a profound effect upon professors. Some of these

professors thought if you could get immediate feedback — and I don't

use that as a pun — from pecking certain patterns.... If you could do

that with pigeons, you could gratify a student learner in a similar way

through a teaching machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pigeon-hole them.

MR. ROSE: As my friend says, this wouldn't necessarily

pigeon-hole them as failures. It might actually help them. It would do

a lot of things, Mr. Chairman, that were educationally very satisfying,

and also valid. It would provide for individual instruction, because

all pigeons don't learn to peck at the same time, and it was considered

that humans wouldn't either. But we don't even hear of teaching

machines any more. They were elaborate things. They came in little

boxes. Some of them came in books. Some of them were on television and

looked a little bit like these video games. But the point is that they

were impersonal. The people didn't peck them with the same enthusiasm

as did the pigeons.

So here's another example where if you try to provide a substitute

that is impersonal, in spite of all its theoretical validity, it may

not be very effective. So I leave that one with you, and an elaboration

of Prof. Dennison's observation number two: the point that many

students need personal attention to overcome psychological factors

formulates an effective barrier — not an educational advantage, says

Prof. Dennison, but a barrier — to further education.

The third point he makes is: "Colleges will be unable to respond to

the unique and urgent needs of their own communities." If a community

decides it needs a particular kind of course desperately, that might be

convincing to the minister. But he need not pay any further attention,

because recall this as well, Mr. Chairman. The minister has also seen

to it in this bill — a little bit further down, and I'll have more to

say about that later — that those people who are placed on the board

who are likely to raise Cain with the minister and demand local

autonomy and local control may not be there. I'm quite sure that the

minister is not going to appoint many mavericks to that board. So we

may not have that happen. What will happen is the eventual

disintegration of community learning, which was traditionally provided

by community colleges. That is a serious thing, and that's why we treat

the bill very seriously. It doesn't mean we're going to talk on it

forever; it may only seem like forever. But it does mean that we treat

the matter with extreme seriousness. We think the minister is barking

up the wrong tree. We've been wrong before. It's hard to say this, but

the Social Credit government has been wrong before. The five councils

are perfect examples of the rethinking since 1979. We hope our words

will have some effect, although we don't have a great deal of faith

that they're going to move mountains, even though the minister is

always willing to consult — especially after the legislation is in

place.

The point I tried to make yesterday is also touched on by Prof.

Dennison in his paper. He talked about how colleges and institutes will

provide educational services to an increasingly selective segment of

the population: that is, those who are young, mobile and financially

comfortable. I thought that the whole raison d'etre for the community

college was that it was not just for the young but also for the mature,

for the immobile and not just the mobile, and for those people who may

not have the financial resources to go out of their own communities for

further education. To me that seems to strike at the very heart of

universality, on which we in this country and also in America have

prided ouselves: that our education system is available to all and,

hopefully, without major regard — although it's been an objective and

an ideal, we've never made it yet — to a person's income. We have

believed in free, universal education, certainly in the elementary and

secondary schools, and we were moving towards it by relatively low fees

in the post-secondary schools, providing a less expensive form of

education.

[3:00]

If, through the reduction of courses, the only people able to take

advantage of those courses are those who are able to move throughout

the region and pay board somewhere, then you're restricting access to

education. We look upon this with some regret, because we think it is a

reversal of the direction we've been taking over the past 150 years

that we've had public education in this country — free, universal,

community public education. If it's taken to its illogical extreme —

and I know it's illogical — I'm afraid that a kind of elitism will

develop, where you teach the best and shoot the rest. We want as many

people as possible to take advantage of these offerings, whether

vocational or academic, and to be able to have an opportunity to do so.

Another point raised here is that community and continuing education tend to be given lower priority under a

[ Page 1403 ]

centralized, cost-effective structure. The quality-of-life argument probably....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair really hates to

interrupt at this point, but

section 3 is quite specific. Although the

member's debate is relevant to education, perhaps it might be better

canvassed during the estimates. We seem to be going beyond the scope of

the

section before us.

MR. ROSE: I'll be guided by your words, Mr. Chairman. I

certainly don't agree totally with them. I'm trying to make the point

that if we pass (k) — which I intend to amend here pretty soon — we

will restrict access to and the universality of education. I'm trying

to support my argument by asking: what happens if we pass (k)? I

thought that perhaps I hadn't strayed too far from the major point, but

I'll certainly be guided by your admonition and will proceed with your

words in mind.

I'm suggesting here that we want to make certain that colleges

continue to offer quality-of-life courses, not just occupational

training, because lots of people take advantage of those courses. They

don't necessarily want them either for a job or as a prerequisite to

something else; they want it because it makes their lives more

civilized and decent. In our mania to cut costs, we may deny people

that kind of access to a very meaningful thing. Ultimately what really

counts in this world is how we get along and how we survive as

civilized individuals, rather than how much money we make or spend. The

final point is that learner groups have unique needs. The whole purpose

of a college or school or anything else is to provide some kind of

learning. If you don't have a learning focused on the needs of the

students, learning doesn't take place.

Finally, if post-secondary education is going to be independent of

outside authorities, it seems to me that the thrust of centralism will

act against the best needs of individuals within the community. But I

can speak to that one at greater length another time.

Let me just finish up this debate on (

k) with a couple of quotes

that I think are relatively important to this before I put my

amendment. This is the Frank Beinder monograph again, and he says, on

page 21:

"College people today are sharing concerns about the

relative emphasis on general and technical-vocational education. It

becomes fairly obvious that some liberal arts people are suffering deep

depre ssion. However, it can be

legitimately argued that the current emphasis on technical-vocational

education is a quite proper response to the very difficult economic situation...the western world is striv ing at the present time.

"It is a demonstration of the flexibility and

responsiveness to the community and societal need that is the

fundamental characteristic of the comprehensive community college.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that there are those in

positions of influence who are ready to initiate a new feudal society,

the components of which would be a corporate aristocracy served by a

technologically trained but otherwise uneducated peasantry."

Those are pretty lofty remarks, and somebody might ask what I mean by all....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I would say the concern about what might happen is

that we are going to so emphasize the technical or high-tech aspect of

education — vocational and occupational — and be so lured, tantalized

and enchanted by that, that we will forget that there are other aspects

in life that are important to the development of a human being other

than his capacity to earn a living. The business about the

technological world is that there would be technological serfs,

probably doing very repetitive jobs, if they had jobs at all, of low

skill, managed by a group of highly skilled people who have the

opportunity for education, and the disappearance of the middle-class,

who are the consumers of society. That kind of thinking is not unique.

There are lots of other people besides Frank Beinder who make arguments

along those lines.

All the futurists in the world are sometimes considered loonies. We

don't know what's going to happen, really, and that's why we have to be

flexible in terms of our education. I don't think it hurts to read a

bit of that stuff, even if it does sound a little bit other-worldly.

On this question I'd like to move the following amendment. I would

like to add to (

k) the words "but no change shall be made in the

courses as a result of the minister exercising his power under this

section until consultation, as defined in this act, has taken place."

So part (

k) reads now — and I therefore so move, Mr. Chairman: — (

k) require institutions to avoid unnecessary duplication in the courses

offered, but no change shall be made in the courses as a result of the

minister exercising his powers under this

section until consultation,

as defined in this act, has taken place." I would like to leave that

out, because when this was proposed, we had added an amendment defining

"consultation." So I'd like it to end at this point, Mr. Ch airman: "...but no change shall be ma de

in the courses as a result of the minister exercising this power under

this section, until consultation has taken place." I’ll go back and

discuss that in greater depth for the information of the Minister of

Finance during the next amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment fails, as the Chair rules that it goes beyond the scope of the intent. Please proceed with

section

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. ROSE: I didn't expect it to come up that quickly, Mr.

Chairman. I thought there would be other speakers on

section 3, so it

came as a bit of a surprise to me that I would have to be prepared to

speak again so quickly.

However, never at a loss for words, I would like now to proceed to a

little bit of a discussion on what I believe to be probably the

greatest fault in the bill: the absolute removal of any kind of elected

representation on college boards. I and my colleagues feel extremely

strongly about that. We've said this on a number of occasions, and it

just so happens that I have here in my hand an amendment that deals

with that. I know that you will certainly be anxious to hear what that

is, but before I move to that I think there is time for fair comment.

Mr. Chairman, the part of the

section to which I refer and which I intend to

amend is this: "The board of a college shall consist of 5 or more members

appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council."

Section 5 does something

else along

[ Page 1404 ]

the same lines, but I don't wish to get into that.

I don't wish to speak at any great length on this, because I know some

of my other colleagues are anxious to get in on this debate. But I

would like to quote from the colleges themselves, because I think it's

important that those people who are going to be affected by this

legislation should have an opportunity to express themselves. And they

have.

I don't know whether the minister, in his introductory remarks, gave

an indication that somehow these changes that he is proposing in Bill

20 have met with the enthusiastic, unanimous approval of all the

college associations. I'm surprised there hasn't been more noise about

it, but if you have enough members appointed by the government in your

association, you are probably not going to have a violent outcry. I

don't think that anybody should let this measure go without at least

some reference to the British Columbia Association of Colleges. This

group represents board members and others — administrators of these

colleges. They wrote the minister on July 25, 1983, giving him their

views on what they think of

section 4. I know the minister has read

this, and I apologize, but I think it's important that this matter be

read into the record, because I wouldn't want anybody to be confused

about how the college board members feel about this.

"Our members view the above-quoted amendment...." That is the amendment

section 4 making all board members appointed instead of being elected, as

some of them were in the past, through the school board. From now on the boards

will be smaller and all will be appointed. People have talked, probably disparagingly,

about the possibility that puppets will be appointed there. They may not be

broadly representative of the community. They may be from one particular group.

They will probably be just from business interests; they probably will not represent

labour or women's groups, homemakers, the professions. They may, on the

other hand. It is certainly to be hoped that they will be broadly based and

community-representative groups. Nevertheless, we've seen the end of the

indirect election of school board members who've been elected by the public,

and they are now going to be replaced entirely by political appointments.

I'll go on to read the letter:

"Our members view the above-quoted amendment revising

the provisions for appointment of members of boards of colleges as

being incompatible with the community mandate of our institutions. We

appreciate that one of the factors in the decision to remove appointees

of school boards from college boards was a perceived need to reduce the

size of certain of those governing bodies."

They're costly. They get paid if they go there.

They get their transportation and probably money for cookies and that

sort of thing.

[3:15]

"Nevertheless it is noted with regret that the

mechanism chosen has eliminated any source of members who are and can

be seen to be independent of the government of the day."

That is a crucial point. That's the point that

concerns us. This

section removes the possibility that these board

members can be seen as independent of the government of the day. The

point is made here that the possibility strongly exists that the

minister could be appointing his pals to these jobs, and that's the

kind of views we'll get. We won't get any opposition views. We won't

get any contradictory views. Those are not my words at this time; those

are the words of the members of this particular association. It's

signed by the president, Mr. Abe H. Unruh: "We believe that about half

of the members of any board should have that independence." Well, I

believe they all should, because presumably we come in here that way,

and act as a board for the province.

"Also, in the matter of the appropriate minimum numbers of members

to be appointed to a college board, our membership has stated clearly

its doubt of the adequacy of the five member boards in both the

maintenance of the interests of the local community and in the

efficient management of the colleges." The boards are too small, they

say.

"Where there is an insufficient number of board members

to perform necessary committee duties, the public interest in colleges tends

to be surrendered to the control of employed administrators." In other words, the bureaucrats are running the policy-makers. What happens

is that we have a legislative role by the board members getting all mixed up

in the executive role. So it's the job of the board to determine what is

to be done, and it is the job of the executive or the administrative to do it.

If the administrative starts making policy, you have confusion in the lines,

and this can't be good in any kind of a management scheme, let alone one

that purports to run an institution of higher education. "It is the considered

opinion of my association that to be efficient, a board should consist of not

less than nine members."

"We have observed that the school trustees and other

appointees of school boards who have been members of college boards

have made significant contributions to the development of their

institutions and to the system in general. It is perhaps significant

that of the past 11 elected presidents of the B.C. Association of

Colleges, eight have been school board appointees."

Well, where are they going to come from now?

They're not going to come from school board appointees, because there

won't be any. Maybe there won't be any British Columbia Association of

Colleges. I understand that certain kinds of threats and questions

about the validity of the B.C. School Trustees Association have been

made, and as to whether or not school boards will be able to pay their

dues to that august body which has served us so well. Maybe this will

be the same here. I'm not quite finished with this letter, Mr. Chairman.

"In virtually all the college regions there is an

extensive interaction between the college and local school districts —

an articulation if you like. This has been particularly evident in the

matter of articulation of courses and programs, emphasized by your

government in 1979 as an important exercise in cost effectiveness. This

activity has been greatly facilitated by the direct involvement of

school board appointees on college boards."

This, we remind ourselves, is what the minister seeks to eliminate.

"Inasmuch as the school board appointees have

continued to be trustees or ex-trustees, the colleges have been assured

of representation which is not only independent of the government of

the day but is a demonstrated interest and has become knowledgable in

specifically the educational requirements of the community.

[ Page 1405 ]

"While there may be other ways of achieving these

objectives, the appointment of a significant proportion of members of

college boards by school boards is the method which has been used. It

has been productive."

Mr. Unruh closes by saying: "We submit that until another equally effective

way of selecting independent community representatives for appointment to college

boards is found, the current procedure should be continued." They want

the thing to remain as it is. They don't want the end of the school board

appointees, for all the reasons Fve given. These are the people who are going

to be affected by it.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. In

section 4, line 2,

after "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," I move the following words be

added: "But the majority of members shall be elected school trustees

from areas served by the college, selected on the recommendations of

their boards."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member may proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: In support of the amendment, I doubt seriously

that the minister — the neutron bomb of the Social Credit debating

society over there — is going to agree with the amendment, but I think

it really embodies the principle of the entire bill. Yesterday the

Minister of Education, the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), in attempting to justify the actions that he is taking in

this bill, used the argument that since the local school boards no

longer put up or shared in either capital funding or in operating funds

for community colleges, they really have no input into what those

community colleges did.

Mr. Chairman, this is a specious argument. Coming from a

resource-producing area of this province, the minister knows full well

that the funding that goes into the College of New Caledonia comes from

the people of Prince George and the surrounding regions. The investors,

the working people, the businessmen and the professionals produce the

money which is channelled through this government in Victoria to

provide post-secondary training in the community that he represents in

the Legislature. Similarly Selkirk College in the West Kootenay is

funded with money which comes from the resource industries, the people,

the businessmen and the workers of that area. The minister knows that.

To use his specious argument, I suppose, we could say we should even do

away with the provincial government and let Ottawa decide everything.

After all, they're elected to take responsibility.

I could give the minister a tiny bit of a history lesson in this

because I was personally involved when Selkirk College, which was the

first self-contained campus of any community college that was built....

The fact remains that there were referenda, Mr. Chairman. There were

referenda passed for both capital and operating funds on a sharing

basis, using the formula set up under the auspices of my honourable

predecessor, Mr. Donald Brothers, who was the MLA at the time for

Rossland-Trail and Minister of Education. He worked very well with many

people, one of whom was chairman of the school board at that time.

Yesterday the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) alluded to Mr.

Frank Beinder. He was the chairman of the Trail school board district 9

and was a resident of Rossland at the time.

The fact is that there were local referenda. There were people in no

fewer than six school districts. There's been some reorganization, but

I'll read them off now: Arrow Lakes, Nelson, Castlegar, Kaslo-Creston,

Trail and Grand Forks participated, by their democratic vote, Mr.

Chairman, in both capital and operating costs because they wanted

post-secondary education, technologies and occupational training in the

West Kootenay. They wanted it for themselves as adults; they wanted it

for their children.

Mr. Chairman, to suggest that because a process that started under

my colleague from Burnaby North when she was minister, where the

province started taking 100 percent of capital costs, and continued

under the present government, where the province took over 100 percent

of operating costs as well, which was a good thing.... To suggest that

is a reason why there should be no more elected — I want to emphasize

"elected" — community involvement in community colleges is getting into

some kind of newspeak here where we call them community colleges but,

in fact, there's a centralized, authoritarian control from the

minister's office in Victoria over the operations of community

colleges. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that you know and I'm sure every

member of this House knows that the broad policy and educational goals

are still — and will remain — under the control of the ministry and the

government in Victoria. So what has the minister to fear that there may

be some locally elected people as a countervailing influence on the

people that the minister arbitrarily appoints?

The minister of the day may, in some respects, be a well-intentioned

and responsible person. He may know a great deal about the community

that he comes from, and he may reflect the educational needs and

desires for post-secondary, technological and academic training in his

community. But, Mr. Chairman, he would have to be some kind of superman

to know all of the needs of West Kootenay, Langley, greater Victoria

and the northern part of Vancouver Island. The best way of meeting

those needs is with people who are duly elected by the ratepayers, the

taxpayers and the property owners of those areas.

Going back once more to one of the reasons community colleges were

established, because there was a recognition that the educational

institutions of B.C., including BCIT, were not necessarily always

providing training that was useful to the employers of B.C., whether

they were large or small industries, retail businesses or various

elements of the public sector and Crown corporations.... There were

people being graduated from educational institutions in B.C., with a

large public subsidy, who in fact, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, were

not employable. It had nothing to do with the quality of their

training. The fact is that they simply were not being channelled into

occupations and trades that were necessarily needed. I blame the

private sector as well as government in this.

One of the things that community colleges did — again I can relate

to my own area — was to go out to employers in those communities, large

and small, and say: "What kind of positions and qualifications are you

having trouble filling? What things are you having to go to other parts

of Canada to find people who are qualified for? In what areas are you

having to advertise in Great Britain and in Europe to fill positions?"

As much as possible, those local boards and councils established

technologies and occupational training to meet those requirements of

employers in British Columbia, to use B.C. taxpayers' dollars to train

not just young

[ Page 1406 ]

people but adults as well, and retrain adults who

maybe want to improve themselves, in some cases where they may have had

some economic adversity and found themselves on welfare or UIC, to

train them for jobs that were waiting for them, with employers in both

the private and the public sector. The minister is turning his back on

the practical and obvious lessons that have taken place in British

Columbia and in other jurisdictions, both to the south of us, in the

lower 48 as they are called, and to the east of us in the rest of

Canada. Sure, it is a good idea to streamline the cost of boards and

councils in this day and age. There may be some valid argument for

reducing the total number of board members. But looking at Selkirk

College in particular, we still have six different school districts

involved, and he proposes to reduce that board to five, and possibly as

many as five members all appointed arbitrarily by Victoria.

Many speeches have been given over the past three months about not

only the evils of authoritarian centralism but the impracticality of it

in terms of being cost-effective, of delivering services that the

public of B.C. want and need and are prepared to pay for, even and

especially in times of economic adversity. One of the major areas of

service that the public of B.C. have time and time again shown their

willingness to pay for is post-secondary, occupational, academic and

technological training. In fact, the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) constantly likes to give speeches

about how this is the great future for the province of British

Columbia. If we don't have this kind of input from the local level, how

is the public of B.C. going to receive these kinds of services, and how

is the public going to have programs designed to meet the employment

needs of employers? We often talk about the employment needs of people;

I would like to talk a bit about the employment needs of employers who

in many cases simply cannot find, within all of the training in B.C.,

people trained for the positions they have openings for.

I sincerely hope that the minister will consider accepting this

amendment. There will be no cost to the government, but it will allow

that all-important local community input into the management, operation

and, perhaps most importantly, the academic, technological and

occupational programs of the community colleges throughout the province.

[3:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am rising to speak against the

amendment. It seems strange that appointments made from people within

the community are precluded from having input, and the only criteria

which the members opposite seem to be attaching to school board

appointees, or trustees in particular, is that they happen to be

elected to a school board. I would venture to say — and my experience

tells me, in the area with which I am particularly familiar — is that

the appointees on the board of the College of New Caledonia are

extraordinarily active. As a matter of fact, this is the function which

they have taken unto themselves, and they have done a very good job.

Why is it necessary, when we have a college serving a large geographic

area...? As my nemesis over there, the member for Rossland-Trail, says,

he has six school districts. So suddenly what do we have? Six school

districts in the area, and everybody in each district is going to want

to have someone appointed. So suddenly we look at the legislation, and

what do we find? A minimum of 13. One of the big arguments which has

been put before me constantly is that the size of college boards is too

large. Do you know how many are sitting on the board of Okanagan

College? Twenty-two.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Then you are faced with the other problem, and that is.... I am in order, am I not, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The point is, you have districts competing

for representation. We get into the Kootenays and somebody says: "Well,

it should come from Cranbrook and not from another area, because we

have only got room for so many." One of the things is the presumption

in the remarks made by some members of the opposition. You seem to

think you have got the corner on the market of people who are prepared

to make a contribution in the community where they live. There are lots

of people who support us in what we are doing. There are lots of people

in labour, and homemakers. A valid point was made yesterday by the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), and you can rest assured it is

something I am going to examine: that is, there apparently is a

deficiency of women on college boards throughout the province. There

are 22 colleges, and I think it is something that must be examined. The

legislation makes reference to five-plus. Many of the boards themselves

have been advocating something in the area of seven or nine. In one

case I have a request made for 11.

I'd like to just refresh the memory of some of the members with

respect to some of the comments made yesterday. I advised the House

yesterday of the number of other jurisdictions — particularly Alberta

and Ontario, which in fact have colleges comparable to those in British

Columbia — which do not have school board appointees or trustees on the

college boards. But I advised the House, in fairness, as well that

those colleges do not have the history that those in British Columbia

have with respect to the way the funding started with respect to

operating capital, the use of facilities and shared administration. I

also advised the House yesterday that many colleges in the United

States are operating on the same basis — they are government or state

appointees; I think I said state appointees.

The next example I gave was Pacific Vocational Institute. PVI has

entered into a liaison contract with six school districts, which I

named yesterday, all of which are in the Fraser Valley. There is a

seventh one coming in and that is the Vancouver School Board. That's

something. I would also mention — and I don't think I'm being facetious

in any way in saying this — that I believe school trustees right now

have their plates full, and we are well aware of what is going on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right, fair enough. They've got a lot of work to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You bet, but there are tough times here right now and we're going to come through this everybody will.

Another item which I raised with you is the matter of liaison with school districts. I gave an example yesterday

[ Page 1407 ]

which involved a problem in Quesnel, and Quesnel is

served by the College of New Caledonia. It was felt that if a committee

was set up to resolve the problem, it could be handled and it was.

I think when we add up all of these items and the comments which

were made yesterday.... I don't accept the fact that it's a specious

argument. The fact that the government now totally funds colleges, the

fact that school boards were integral parts of the college system when

it first came into existence and through its development period when

they shared facilities.... The school district was used as a vehicle

for raising not only operating money but also capital for development.

The colleges are now fully established with their own facilities —

reasonably well-established; they are always looking for more. I think

the members continually ignore the statement which I repeatedly make,

and that is: the objective which we have is to really ensure that the

colleges are autonomous bodies. What we want is to shrink, as much as

possible, the administration in Victoria — I can assure you of that —

and put out into the colleges the funds which are available as far as

course curriculum and articulation is concerned. You can't just put out

$300-plus million and not have something to say about it. I don't think

the members opposite are really asking that.

I will start to stray, Mr. Chairman, if we get into that other

matter, but as far as the school trustees are concerned, I raised

another point. That is that a number of college employees in British

Columbia are serving on school boards. It seems to me that when we have

the college board meeting and somebody is sitting on the school board

who is an elected trustee and is involved with certain confidential

meetings in camera which then suddenly come back in and the school

boards says, "We want to know what's going on," we're placing those

people in a conflict-of-interest position, which I don't think we have

the right to do.

It also seems to me that we make the commitment as a government that

those people appointed to college boards are in fact from the

community. I recognize the allegations which were made with respect to

everything being business-oriented. But when I turn around and look at

the composition of the boards now, excluding the trustees or school

board appointees, I find that there is a wide variation in the

vocational or professional backgrounds of those people on the boards. I

have a little bit more faith in human nature and in the commitment of

those individuals in the communities where the colleges are located. I

think you're right. I think the opposition is correct: it's incumbent

on government to ensure — and I mean this sincerely — that there is

representation on those college boards, not just to cover vocational

work but to look at the academic side as well. There's no question

about that. I feel that this will all come to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot, nor can the government, support the

amendment which the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has placed

before the House.

MR. COCKE: I expected that, but I didn't expect the weak

argument that the minister produced. The minister is telling the House

that he and his government colleagues can make all the appointments

from Victoria by order-in-council and not involve the community at

large. In his convoluted argument, he is saying that he is somehow

involving the community. He made a very weak argument about the fact

that sometime somewhere in some historical situation there was an

employee, or more, of the college on the school board who wound up on

the college board. That situation need not occur. Those people can be

exempted from service in that particular situation. It's not a strong

argument.

We're saying that the people in a community should have the right to

elect just the majority of the trustees — and this is what we're asking

for here — not the board of directors and not the entire board. The

government can have its input. The government is doing the financing,

although sometimes I wonder where they're getting their money.

MR. REID: You don't know? You don 't know where they get the money from?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order.

MR. COCKE: Nor does he. You get it off the backs of property

owners and off the backs of people who should not be taxed for these

particular purposes, if the letter of intent was to be followed.

In any event, when the minister suggests that we have a corner on

the market of community involvement — at least, he suggests that that's

the way we feel — I don't think he's far from the truth. I believe that

an elected person has a direct responsibility to that community, and

part of that responsibility is to see that the community's needs are

reflected.

The minister apologized to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) that there weren't enough women on college boards. There's a

dearth of women on college boards, and we've all seen that under the

old seven situation. That happens by virtue of the fact that the

minister appoints. How come it didn't come to his attention sooner? He

says he's going to do something about it. Don't hold your breath. The

fact of the matter is that the majority of the people on the college

board should be elected; therefore this proposed amendment is an

excellent one.

[3:45]

He talks about autonomy. Where? Autonomy in his office: that's the

kind of autonomy he's looking for. Once his amendment passes, he

appoints every college board person in the province of B.C. He's

reduced it to five or more. That's a nice, tight little organization.

So he pulls all the strings, gives all the directions, and the

community aspect of colleges is taken away. They will be run from the

minister's office. That's what we're talking about here. Let's bring a

little bit of daylight into this whole thing. Let's bring a little bit

of democracy into it, as much and all as he doesn't like it. I believe

that an elected person who is responsible to the community plays a very

large part.

One last word, Mr. Chairman. He said that they have enough on their

plate now — that is, the school board. He's given them an awful lot of

trouble, there's no question about that. He's taken a lot of their

autonomy and decision-making away too. As a representative of New

Westminster who has watched Douglas College from the very beginning and

has seen the hard work that those school trustees who served on the

board right from its inception have put into that college, I would say

that anybody bringing in a new bill like this which will eliminate all

that — all orders-in-council, all appointed by the minister — is doing

a real injustice to the college system in our province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, in the matter of the amendment as presented by the hon. member for Coquitlam-

[ Page 1408 ]

Moody (Mrs. Wallace), this amendment simply

restates the principle of

section 6 of the College and Institute Act,

which

section 4 of the bill before us is amending. Therefore the

amendment as proposed by the member fails, as it does not amend the

motion but negates it, which can be done simply by voting against the

Section in question. I so rule.

section 4.

MR. HOWARD: I must say that I'm absolutely astounded, Mr.

Chairman — and I'm not being critical of the Chair — at the manner in

which it's possible to seek out reasons for ruling things out of order,

rather than trying to find reasons for their being in order.

I listened to the minister's remarks, and he was permitted to debate

extensively on the amendment, as was the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy), and then the Chair decided after it had been debated that it

could not be debated any longer, because for some obscure reason it's

out of order.

In any event....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the House has a bit of a problem now, Mr.

Chairman. While you were busily engaged with your proper work, the

Minister of Education skipped out, and now he's not available to answer

questions. How can he answer questions when he's outside the door? I

think we need to have a space of time here, awaiting the return of the

absent Minister of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Other hon. members may wish to participate in the debate on this section.

MR. HOWARD: Here he is, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back. Now the

Minister of Education has decided to attend to his duties in the

chamber with respect to this bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're a generous soul.

MR. HOWARD: I am awfully generous. So much so that I'm going

to indicate to the minister that I don't think the arguments which he

put forward were specious. He has said himself that he didn't think

they were specious and neither do I. I just think the minister was

obtuse enough to miss the entire point of what we're discussing on this

particular section, or what was proposed in the amendment which is no

longer before us.

The fundamental question here is one of centralization and

authoritarianism; of a mad desire on the part of this government to run

everybody's life in this province as this government sees fit. The

central question is domination by the Minister of Education and the

cabinet of anything that it can get its hands on to dominate. That's

the fundamental question before us now: control over college boards, as

there is to be control with respect to school boards, hospital boards

and with a number of other institutions in this province which are

considered to be levels of government. That's what is at issue here.

The minister is a pleasant person and one to whom I enjoy listening,

whether he's in order or not at any given time, one who is, I'm sure,

committed to his concepts of what is decent and correct. But he is

trying to put his own character in the forefront of this particular

piece of legislation and attempting thereby to convince the House and

the general public that because he, the Minister of Education, is a

nice and a decent guy, all is well. As he knows — I don't know how many

cabinet posts he's had since he's been in the cabinet, but he's hopped,

skipped and jumped from one to the other — there may well come a time

when he will not be the Minister of Education. Somebody else may hold

that post who does not have the generous view of this minister. I think

it's highly incorrect and highly improper for a minister to draw upon

his own personality and say: "Because I'm a nice guy and this is a good

thing, I won't abuse it." That is the wrong way to approach things.

He knows full well that when this House passes legislation it is the

law for all time to come until a subsequent legislature changes it.

Ministers come and ministers go, and you might have a bad guy at some

time in the office of the Minister of Education who will want to use

this particular provision to make his own crass, rotten political

appointments to college boards and intrude upon them. That was the

purpose of part of the amendment that the minister talked against. It

was to ensure that there would be some kind of counterbalance against

the potential abuse of a provision of this nature.

In addition to that, it is not the minister who makes the

appointments; it's the cabinet. The minister may make recommendations

internally within the cabinet. He may say, "I'd like these persons to

be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor," but the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the cabinet. It's not the minister.

So to drag himself out as the saviour of bad doings and unfair

practices is an improper way to attempt to lead this House to support

his provisions. That was done before.

The origin of what the minister is seeking to do now — that is, to

centralize control and authority in the hands of the cabinet in

Victoria — was two years ago. He was the minister of something else at

that time — Labour, if my memory serves me correctly — when his

colleague the Attorney-General, the then Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Smith), brought in an amendment to the College and Institute Act.

That amendment, brought in in 1980, said that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the authority to appoint

members to the college board so that there will always be one more

person appointed by government than there would be chosen by school

boards. In other words, the government would always have majority

control by its appointments on any particular college board.

The argument put forward at that time by the former Minister of

Education — and I submit that it was a highly misleading argument — is

exactly the same argument the minister is using now. The minister is

now saying that this is because college boards are funded 100 percent

by the provincial treasury. Of course, that disregards the very valid

point made by my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) that people

who live and work in those communities and areas served by colleges pay

the taxes that come to the provincial treasury here and go back to the

college board. The argument that the provincial treasury funds colleges

100 percent is exactly the same argument that his predecessor, the now

Attorney-General, made in 1980 in support of the provision to ensure

that the cabinet always had the final authority in controlling and in

dominating college boards.

The former Minister of Education, I submit, not only misled this

House with respect to intentions, but he also misled the school

trustees. When that particular amendment

[ Page 1409 ]

of 1980 to which I referred was being dealt with in

this House, the former Minister of Education on June 4, 1980, in

support of his desire to have one additional person appointed by

cabinet on college boards, pointed out that there had been a resolution

passed at the B.C. School Trustees' Association convention objecting to

that course of action. I will quote Hon. Mr. Smith from page 2803 of Hansard ,

June 4, 1980: "I was questioned at that convention on this proposed

amendment. I gave my answer and rationale.... " His answer and

rationale is exactly what the minister is advancing now in support of

his desires here. "I gave my answer and rationale, just as I did in

this House, and I got a very good applause and reception after that.

They disagreed with me and passed a resolution. I accept that." Then he

goes on further to discuss this point about school districts.

Their concern then, as it is now, was local control — local

opportunity — for people to participate in and have a say in the

college board serving their particular community. The former Minister

of Education, the now Attorney-General — and I want the minister to pay

attention to this — in attempting to get passed through this House the

bill to ensure that the cabinet would always have the right to appoint

one more person to college boards than there were elected school

trustees said, in his request for support for the provision, and this

is a commitment: "Every school district in a college region will have

the right still to appoint one trustee to the board, and that will

provide local flavour and local decision making from each of those

regions." That was the commitment of the former Minister of Education

when he dealt with an earlier amendment. His commitment was

unequivocally that every school district will have the right. Now the

minister he doesn't care what he said.

[4:00]

In 1980 the minister was in the cabinet which made that decision,

and he supported it at that time. The minister is now flying in the

face of his own support of three years ago, saying: "I don't care what

I committed myself to then; I now want to control it completely. I now

want to run the show, I now want to see the cabinet dominate

exclusively and entirely," potentially without regard for any desire of

local people to have a say in who will be on that college board, except

perhaps by coming in a very pleading sort of way and saying to the

cabinet: "Will you appoint me to the college board? I am a good Social

Crediter." They will ask him to drag out his card, and they may appoint

him. That's the potential involved in this particular piece of

legislation. No, I don't think the minister's earlier arguments were

specious; I just think they were obstinately missing the point. This

Minister of Education knows very well that his position in 1980 I on

this self-same matter flies in the face of it. Maybe that means he has

completely sold out his principles to the domination within the cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that remark isn't parliamentary. I will ask the hon. member to withdraw the reference to the hon. minister.

MR. HOWARD: What reference?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference in the last statement made by the

member for Skeena was deemed to be unparliamentary, and I will ask him,

in the tradition of parliament, to withdraw the reference to another

hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't mind knowing what the reference is

that I am supposed to withdraw. I said a number of things about the

minister — about his activities three years ago, about his flying in

the face of his own decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds the reference to the selling out principles to he unparliamentary. Will the member please withdraw that?

MR. HOWARD: Will I withdraw the reference that the minister sold out his principles?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think an unqualified withdrawal is sufficient.

MR. HOWARD: I am asking if that's what you are asking me to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: I will withdraw the reference that the minister sold out his principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is fine, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: But I did not say that; I said maybe he did; I will withdraw the maybe part as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The withdrawal has been made.

The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Just a few remarks, because I would like to address

myself to some of the things said by the minister when he got up to

debate what we had to say about this amendment. I don't think it need

take very long but I would like to clarify a few things.

We argued for the election of people to these boards, as has been

done in the past. Not that we charge that all people appointed to the

boards were either unrepresentative or didn't do a good job. We are not

saying that appointed people do not do a good job. The amendment I put

forward suggested that at least half should be elected because they

tend to be more representative. We want them to be elected because they

are accountable and can be much more accountable than if they are

appointed. There is always the fear that the government in power is

likely to appoint to boards of various kinds its own supporters.

I can give you a very interesting example. I was defeated in 1974. I

had been very active on the broadcast committee, and I got to know a

lot of film-makers. We have in this country an agency called the

Canadian Film Development Corporation, which funds feature films,

advancing money to develop a Canadian film industry. I got to know some

of those people, including the director. It has a board equivalent to a

college board. I was asked by the film-makers themself if I would

accept their recommendation for appointment to the Canadian Film

Development Corporation. I said: "Sure, go ahead, that's terrific, but

I will never be appointed." They said, "Why not?" and I said: "Because

I am not a Liberal." We are concerned about the same thing here. Not

that able people are not appointed to these boards, but it's more

likely that those who are appointed will be people known to the

government, friends of the government, and we are concerned about a

broadly based board.

[ Page 1410 ]

We are also concerned about a board that is accountable. If a school

board person doesn't do his job, or an MLA or MP, the option always

exists to toss him out at the next election. He's not there at the

pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; he's there at the

pleasure of the people. We happen to think that this is a good

principle. Why not appoint all your school boards, Mr. Minister? Are

you planning to do that next? Why not appoint the school boards if you

are going to appoint the college boards? Certainly you might have a

multiple jurisdiction in school boards that overlap a number of

municipalities, but you don't use the argument there and it makes

little or no sense to use it in the other place as well.

Another thing that the minister said that bothers me a bit is a

suggestion that people employed as college teachers shouldn't have the

option or the right of a citizen to run for or be appointed to or be a

member of a college board. The minister is certainly going to fix that

now. There is no question of that happening now, but to justify what

he's doing because some college teachers happen to sit on college

boards is to me the public denial of the rights of an individual — an

adult in our society — to run for office regardless of his job.

Mr. Chairman, has anybody ever suggested that, for instance, the

people involved in the real estate industry should not run for office,

such as municipal council where rezonings take place?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't work....

MR. ROSE: They do. People in certain industries, such as the

real estate industry, have an opportunity to influence the zoning if

they are members of council. There are obvious chances for conflict of

interest there, and the member knows it as well as I do.

What I'm saying is that you can have geographical representation.

Another straw-man argument is that because you have several

jurisdictions feeding Selkirk College you couldn't appoint.... All the

school boards would be jealous of one another. Aren't the communities

going to be the same if you appoint them from one community rather than

another? Presumably they are going to be geographically representative

and hopefully they will be occupationally representative. What we're

saying here is that we feel that it is a step backwards to do what

you're doing in its entirety. We're not quarrelling with the fact that

there could be some appointed people to look after the province's

interests. But we think that it is the people in those areas who need

the representation and the opportunity, if they don't like an

appointment, to vote him out of office — throw the bum out at the next

election.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to make to

section 5, and it follows along the same line. I'll read you the

amendment before I actually hand it in. Unfortunately, although I

thought my previous amendment was acceptable, I found that after the

Chairman had another thought or two, it was suddenly no longer

acceptable. I imagine that this might suffer from the same problem.

What I would like to say is that this amendment add to

section 5,

after "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," the following words: "But the

majority of members" — and I had hoped that we would have elected

members on these college boards, five or more in number — "shall be

broadly representative of the public at large and shall include at

least one representative of the faculty, " — that might be considered a

conflict of interest, but it also gives faculty input — "the student

body and the support staff. Representatives of the faculty, student

body and the support staff shall be appointed only after consultation

with the appropriate representative groups." In other words, they

become delegates to the groups they represent, whether it's faculty or

student or staff.

The reason we're suggesting that is we are concerned that in a

number of cases you have a kind of single-mindedness develop where you

don't have certain kinds of occupational groups or when certain people

who are affected by the decisions have no voice in the decisions being

made about them. We don't want them to form a majority on those

councils. We don't want them to be able to vote themselves huge raises,

as municipal councils or MLAs or MPs are able to do. We want them there

as representatives. We think that on councils there should be working

people, professionals, business persons, farmers, firemen, homemakers

or whatever, provided we have an occupational professional

representation which is vertically long, I guess, and broad in terms of

geographical representation from the area the college serves.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to proceed unduly with this. I am

concerned that the students, those who are the consumers of the

services of a college, and the people who do the work there have an

opportunity to have a real voice in how the institution is to be run,

in the same way that MLAs and MPs have a real voice in how this

institution is run. For instance, I don't believe what John Diefenbaker

said about the federal parliament one time: "This institution is the

only institution in Canada run entirely by its inmates."

MR. REID: Do you want to bet?

MR. ROSE: Well, I suggest that it's not the only one.

What we are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is centralization. We

want to see the representation on the policy-making bodies broadened.

We want to make certain that some informed criticism comes out of these

councils. We don't want them mugged or silenced; we think we can

achieve this by the amendment which I have just proposed.

On the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I recall that during a number of

campaigns, the Premier — who is now with us in the House — was very

emphatic about local control. The opposition members are giving the

Social Credit government the opportunity to ensure that there is more

true, local control and a broad spectrum of representation. I think

that the member who just spoke has outlined all the reasons for this.

When we spoke yesterday, we emphasized our grave concern that under the

past ministers — and I'm not referring to the present minister — and

particularly the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications,

we found a very elitist approach to control of governance in our

institutions. So I would hope that the new minister, starting off

freshly, would not take that elitist approach; that he will ensure by

accepting

[ Page 1411 ]

this amendment, that the public will truly be represented in a regional college district.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the problem with this government is that they buck trends. They're going against trends.

For a long time, centralization became a part of the whole western

world. It's about time that they started thinking forward instead of

backward. It's a backward-thinking government that goes the route that

they're going in terms of this proposed legislation. Centralized

authority has not worked. As a matter of fact, if the minister would

like to go to the library sometime, he can pick up Megatrends

and read passages such as: "We've stolen a lot of our legislation from

the States" — that's federally they're talking about here. "All through

the system the failure of centralized top-down solutions has been

accompanied by a huge upsurge in grassroots political activity

everywhere in that country. Some 20 million Americans are now organized

under issues and local concerns." What they are saying is that the

public out there, who pay for everything, feel entitled to have direct

representation. Mr. Chairman, that's really all we're talking about

here.

[4:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister owes it to us

to explain the reason why he's not prepared to amend this section.

Surely he must have had some unfortunate experience in his past with

democratically elected members to the board or something. He wouldn't

just decide, out of the blue, that everyone on the board should be

appointed by the cabinet or by the minister unless he's had some

experience with elected people which was not a very happy one. He

should share that with us. I think we'd like to know why the minister

is not willing to amend this section.

The whole point of committee stage is to ask questions of the

minister and to get a response. This is not second reading; this is not

a debate. This is a period during which the minister defends the

legislation. Can the minister explain to us why he has written into the

legislation that all the members are to be appointed by the cabinet?

What is the reason for that?

For the third time, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister to give an

explanation as to why all of the members of the board have to be

appointed. If the Premier would stop talking to the minister, maybe the

minister would be able to listen to my question and prepare a response.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, can I have an explanation

as to why the decision was made that all the members of the board

should be appointed by cabinet?

MR. HOWARD: Well, the government wants to control college boards. Their authoritarianism is what's involved. That's the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're now on

section 5, which deals with provincial institutes.

MS. BROWN: I'll reword my question: can the minister confirm

that the explanation given by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

is correct?

MR. HANSON: I'd like to answer the question. I think that if

the government has the opportunity to appoint their friends, then

they're going to Tozerize all these boards. All the prominent Social

Credit people throughout the province will be occupying these

positions. They will be taking their instructions directly from the

minister. There won't be any sensitivity to local concerns, or

something broad-based and reflecting the interests and concerns of the

community at large. We'll just have that myopic Social Credit view of

the world. Social Credit shouldn't be in the textbooks of the nation. I

wanted to offer my colleague one answer, but perhaps she'd like to put

it for the fourth or fifth time.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you accepted that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair had not ruled on that amendment, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Therefore it was accepted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it was not. The Chair had just reserved ruling.

MR. ROSE: I know it was voted down, but you accepted the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, the Chair did not make a statement of acceptance or non-acceptance, and then I called the question.

MR. HOWARD: You obviously called the question on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The amendment was accepted. The amendment was defeated on a voice vote, and the Chair so ruled. We're now on

section 5.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, under what

grounds was the amendment to

section 5 accepted and the amendment to

section 4 rejected? They're both the same, and the same ruling would be

contrary to the intent of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment proposed in

section 5 dealt with

elected school trustees, which

section 4 had the principle of

repealing. The amendment under

section 5 of the bill before us dealt

with

section 9 of the Institute Act, which deals not with elected

officials, but rather with appointed officials. The amendment set

forward simply covered further appointed officials. So it's the

principle of elected versus nonelected members. That is why the first

amendment failed and the second amendment did not.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, that's the most lucid explanation the Chair has ever given of anything in this House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, actually I had risen to ask you to

repeat your explanation, as I didn't understand it the first time, but

I won't do that.

I would like the record to show that when the minister was asked a

straightforward question about the decision to appoint all the members

to the board, he refused to answer. That is the height of arrogance.

I'm not imputing an motives; I'm simply stating a fact. Our role here

is to question on behalf of the

[ Page 1412 ]

community at large; that's our responsibility. The

government has a responsibility to respond to those questions. I would

just like the record to show that on four separate occasions the

question was put to the minister and he refused to respond.

Sections 5 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. HOWARD: Can the minister give the committee an explanation of the reason for this section?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The existing

section is updated to

coincide with Ministry of Finance policy. The present

section reads,

"direct the Comptroller General," rather than, "designate a person." I

presume that this is something which has come out as a result of a

request made by the auditor-general. That's what I'm informed, and I

really can't advise the House any further.

MR. HOWARD: That's the first time I've ever heard, in a

matter of this significance, of the minister responding by using the

words "apparently it's for this reason" and he "assumes" it was for

some purpose. Doesn't the minister know why? That's what I asked him. I

didn't ask him if it's a change from the current situation which talks

about designating the comptroller-general. I asked him: why the change?

All I get back is that apparently somebody wanted it that way.

When the minister replied that "apparently" the Minister of Finance

or somebody else wanted it that way, he was clearly revealing that he's

not in charge of his own legislative destiny in this House. Somebody

else is telling him what needs to be done in this act, just as somebody

told him what needed to be done with respect to

section 6 and the

cabinet appointments to the college board. The minister is just a pawn

in this whole game. He is dominated by cabinet and unable to make up

his own mind about anything. He just revealed that very clearly now and

also when he refused to answer questions put by the member for Burnaby

earlier; the Premier turned around and whispered things to him, and the

minister sat silently in his seat — indicating, obviously, that

somebody else is running the show with respect to education. It sure

isn't the Minister of Education.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to see the minister

saddled with legislation which may not be in his own best interest or

that of the community at large, so I think we should call a recess and

let the minister go and find out what the

section means, and come back

and explain it to the House. "Apparently," "maybe," "I believe" and "I

think" are not good enough. Clearly the minister needs some time, Mr.

Chairman.

Would the minister like me to move...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Aye.

MS. BROWN: No, the minister is going to get the information.

The Premier seems to think that this is his legislation. I'm dealing

with the minister, not with the Premier. Have you got the answer now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate must continue, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: I was just giving the minister a chance to get the

answer to my colleague's question, Mr. Chairman, as to the meaning of

section 59 being repealed and the substitution put in about the

Minister of Finance designating a person to examine the reports. Is the

minister ready to respond now?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the

difficulty the members are having. I would ask them to look at the

particular section.

Section 59: "The Minister of Finance may, at any

time, direct the Comptroller General of the Province to examine and

report...." All we're asking now is to designate a person other than

the comptroller-general. It seems abundantly clear, and I don't

understand what the problem is.

MR. HOWARD: All the minister is proving to the House is that

he can read. He's not proving that he can answer a "why." He can simply

say what's proposed to happen. I'm asking why. Is the purpose that the

Minister of Finance may designate a person, meaning that you're out to

privatize the examination and report on financial and accounting

operations of a college? Is that the purpose? You're going to reach out

into the private community and say: "We want you to examine these

accounts." Maybe that's the purpose. I don't know. I simply asked why.

The minister doesn't know why. He just proved that he could read the

act as it is now, and read what it says here. That's simple enough.

Maybe that just proves that the minister's not his own man. That's the

conclusion. He does what he's ordered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Has the comptroller-general been incompetent? Has

he not been doing a good job? Is that the reason why the decision has

now been made to no longer use the services of that particular person?

What is the minister planning to do? Is he planning to go to the Fraser

Institute and ask Michael Walker to check the books? Is that the

decision? Is he planning to go into the community at large, or maybe to

go to some other ministry?

The comptroller-general had responsibility for doing this job. It is

now being taken away from that particular person, and we're told that

the Minister of Finance can designate anyone. Why? Is it because the

comptroller-general wasn't doing a good job? Or is this a complete

change of thinking, in terms of the ministry wanting an outsider to do

the auditing and the monitoring of the finances? Is that the reason why

it's happening?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm rather concerned about the

fact that the minister is not able to answer our questions in this

particular debate on committee stage of this bill. This minister should

be able to tell the opposition. These are legitimate questions. If the

minister doesn't know the answers, why does he not, as he did a couple

of years ago when he didn't know the answers to the questions that were

being posed at that time — when he had responsibility for another

ministry, namely the Ministry of Labour.... At that time, when the

minister reached the stage where it was quite obvious he didn't know

the answers to the questions, he quite readily asked us if we would

please make the suitable motion, because there was no one in the House

at that time to make the motion for him and he couldn't remember what

it was. So I think that in view of the fact that he once, when he

[ Page 1413 ]

realized he couldn't answer the questions, was

prepared to accept a motion from us to adjourn the debate, or to move

that the committee rise in order that he could get the answers he

required.... I don't understand why the minister, at this stage.... Are

you ready to accept that motion at this point?

[4:30]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You're not ready to accept that motion at this

point. All of the cabinet ministers, the House Leader, the Premier and

everybody else is giving the minister advice, and yet it seems that

he's just going to sit there, even though we have these legitimate

questions about this particular

section of this bill. It's quite

understandable, Mr. Chairman, that there are times when ministers are

not able to answer questions posed by the opposition; that shouldn't be

some big embarrassing deal. It shouldn't mean that the government digs

in its heels and refuses to answer and just ensures that the issue is

passed over without getting any questions answered. If the minister is

not able to answer the question, I'd be quite willing to move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Now the minister is getting more advice. Perhaps in a minute or so we'll be able to get....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I'm wondering if the government is ready

for that motion at this time. Oh, the minister has his mike up. Maybe

he's going to make the motion.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the concerns

which the members of the opposition have for my welfare. I've also got

a plane to catch to go to the UBCM meeting, which I'm running late on

now. I understood that it was going to be 4:30 by my critic. So I think

what we'll do, Mr. Chairman, is move that we rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. COCKE: Yesterday I found the minister confused.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, no!

MR. COCKE: Well, you know, that's not unusual, but I found

him just a trifle confused yesterday. I was talking in terms of the

impact the employer's contribution has and in terms of terminal

funding, and so on and so forth. He and I had a bit of an argument.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We clarified it in the corridor.

MR. COCKE: Some of my colleagues even had some difficulty in

following us, because he was saying something in terms of 10 percent —

when you multiply five by two it's 10 percent — and we were talking at

that point about a certain deputy who left and took an opportunity to

purchase himself an additional 50 percent of pension. Let me tell you

how it works.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll tell you after.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to tell you now in the language that people understand.

If, for example, that minister's average income over a period of

five years was $70,000 — we're just using that as a figure from the

blue — that $70,000 is multiplied by a figure of 2 percent, which

brings us to a figure of $1,400. That's the figure that the pension is

based upon. The next factor is a figure of 10 years. You multiply that

by a figure of 10 years and you come up with $14,000 per year pension.

That's the way pensions are built. The minister says an increase of 10

percent is what that additional five years bought him. Let me tell you

how it works. The additional five years means that the 10 is no longer

10; it’s 15, and the 15 multiplied by the $1,400 factor produces

$21,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh! Now is that the 10 percent increase? I ask my

dear colleagues and friends whether or not that is a 10 percent

increase. If it is, I'm looking at 10 percent increases from here on in.

Mr. Chairman, we said yesterday that most aspects of this bill were

okay as far as we were concerned. There is one aspect that I'm going to

talk to the minister about in

section 7, but as far as I'm concerned, I

just wanted to explain to the minister so that he can go back to his

department and explain to the people in his department precisely what

he has done for some of his good and valued servants.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Really, I'm surprised at the confusion that

exists in the mind of the member for New Westminster. He's attempting

to confuse the people in the gallery about pensions. Let me tell you

how a 2 percent formula pension works. If you were entitled to take a

pension after five years of service, you would get 10 percent of your

average salary if it's based on a 5 percent averaging formula. The

maximum in the public service pension, if you've worked for the public

service for 35 years, is that you can get 70 percent of that average

over your best five years. So five years on a 2 percent formula means

10 percent of the average salary over five years. Now, I'm sure that

the member for New Westminster is not going to deny that fact. That is

the fact. That would be the entitlement for an individual if an

individual were able to secure pension after only five years of

service. So if you have ten years it means 20 percent, and 35 years

means 70 percent.

[ Page 1414 ]

So I don't want you to attempt to confuse the people in the gallery on how pensions work. Thank you very much.

MR. COCKE: A vote for Chabot and leave your principles rot.

I want to say this: the minister is quite right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Anti-French.

MR. COCKE: No, not anti-French at all. As a matter of fact, I understand that your dialect is perfect.

Mr. Chairman, I said yesterday that there was an increase of 50

percent in that pension. That's all. The minister said no, 10 percent.

I know perfectly well that it's based on a 2 percent formula. There's

no problem there. But I say this: if we were dealing with a person with

35 years' service it would be an entirely different proposition. But

we're dealing with a person who had nine years and 11 months — not even

ten years. Ten years to vest: you and I know what that means. That

happy wanderer walks away from our service with a locked-in pension

worth 50 percent more than a ten-year pension would have given him. I

said to you that if that were based upon a $70,000 income, that young

fellow would be looking forward to a pension of not only $21,000 a

year, because of its increase, but because it's indexed, it could be an

awful lot more than that by the time that good fellow walks to the

promised land.

That's all. I have no further quarrel with the minister. I know

perfectly well that he now understands pensions a lot better than he

did when he walked in here.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are having trouble with this

section. It says that in the future, instead of general revenue paying

the administrative costs, we'll be pushing the administrative costs

onto the plans. I would first ask the minister why that is necessary.

It's been going on for an awfully long time. Some time ago the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — or maybe it was that minister —

suggested that this would be the way to handle the proposition: let all

the pensions look after themselves and charge them a fee. I don't think

it's necessary at all that that occur, because the provincial

government, by virtue of the fact that they run these plans, are

enriched, having access to huge sums of money for investment purposes.

[4:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Low-interest money.

MR. COCKE: A lot of it is low-interest money, as my colleague

suggests. On that basis, I don't think they should have a second kick

at the cat by charging an administrative charge. Certainly an

administrative charge on our own public servants directly serving the

province is just taking out of one pocket and putting it into the

other. That's not of great significance. But you're dealing here with

Crown corporations, municipalities, teachers' pensions, college

pensions and so on. It strikes me that the access to those funds

through the administration of those plans is sufficient bounty for this

government. I ask, therefore, why we're making this move. It seems to

me petty, and I think it's pilfering.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member uses some very shocking terms

when he talks about pilfering and so forth. First of all, I want to say

that any investments made by these funds accrue to the funds. I don't

think he's attempting to suggest otherwise. The purpose of this

amendment is to bring uniformity to the public sector pension plans. At

the moment the municipal and teachers' pension plans pay the costs of

administration. We're saying there should be uniformity across the

board for public servants; each plan should bear its own administration

costs. That should be extended to Crown corporations and other agencies

which enjoy the sound fiscal management of these pension plans by the

government of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister omitted to say that

part of this administration is deciding where those funds are to be

invested, They're to be invested at the convenience of the Minister of

Finance. Under those circumstances, I feel that's where the government

is making a good win on the administration of the plans. The

administration of this fantastic amount of money is a tremendous amount

of power. I don't know whether most of you know this or not, but by the

year 1990 Wall Street is very likely to be controlled by pension plans.

This is a phenomenal amount of investment capital that provides the

government with a tremendous bonus, and a lot of this money is money

that is not particularly high interest rate.

I would therefore move the following amendment: that Bill 7 be

amended by deleting

section 7. I'm sure the minister will accept that

amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Chairman will determine that, not the

minister. First of all, he'll determine whether it is in order, and I

suggest it is not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that the amendment is not in order inasmuch as it is a direct negative to the

section in the bill.

Sections 7 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 18, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. HANSON: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has been advised that although you adjourned debate you also had spoken for your

[ Page 1415 ]

time limit. The time under standing orders on the main motion has expired, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Could I have another go, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would require leave or that you be a designated speaker.

MR. HANSON: May I ask for leave, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has asked for leave to speak further on Bill 4.

Leave not granted.

MR. COCKE: We're back to random, pull-'em-out-of-a-hat,

bringing up of legislation not in the order that we've been presented.

So it's very difficult for one to be quite as ready as one would like

to be. However, on this bill it's very easy to suggest that when the

government removed the renter's tax credit and the seniors' grants,

they made a tremendously large mistake.

In this province thousands upon thousands of people have been

injured by this government withdrawing assistance to those who are most

needy and increasing taxation on the same people.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, says: "The only one."

As I see this bill, what it does again is tax the poor by taking

away the very sustenance that keeps them in their dwelling place. I

don't want to discuss a previous vote, but in this House this very day

we talked of other initiatives that have done exactly that. I'm talking

in terms of the homeowner's grant, and now here we are, hitting tenants

in virtually the same way, only harder than we were hitting those

homeowners that we talked about. Mr. Speaker, that's precisely the

situation we're in. It's help the greedy and hurt the needy, as the

member points out.

Earlier today a paper carried the following headline: "Sky-High

Rents Forecast." And who are these sky-high rents going to be visited

upon? Those people who are now in rent-controlled accommodation. That

accommodation is rent-controlled because it's the lower-costing

accommodation. That's where we find our senior citizens — not to every

extent, but to a large extent — and where we find the needy who

qualified for renter's grants. Now they are faced with this

proposition. And who proposed these sky-high rents? Not the Minister of

Housing, interestingly enough. His staff did, in his annual report.

Once the controls are removed, the rents are going to go sky high.

That's precisely what we're seeing. We heard the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) just the other day in this House question the

minister about this whole question of rents going up. The minister

bowed his head and said: "We know nothing about it; haven't heard about

it." We went to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) and asked him about it. He didn't know anything about it.

Everything would be fine. The outcome would be that there would be no

problem.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. And the very people who need

the assistance are now, by virtue of the government's concern about a

deficit, being put in a very prejudicial situation. This government, if

it were so terribly concerned about debt, would not have put this

province into the most confounded debt situation ever seen. This

province's Crown corporations — and they are not at arm's length, no

matter what the Premier would like us to believe; they are totally

controlled by the government — have gone from an indebtedness of some

$4 billion in 1976 to an indebtedness now of over $12 billion. They

make the feds, those spendthrifts in Ottawa, look almost frugal. A $12

billion debt and an increase of $8 billion in the last seven years. It

took us a hundred and some-odd years to get to $4 billion, then it took

us another seven and a half or eight years to get to $12 billion.

Therefore how can they come into this House with Bill 4 and say:

"Because we're concerned about the finances of the province, we’re

going to deny those renters and seniors the grants that they once had"?

The House Leader whispers. I'll turn up my hearing aid when I get

around to it.

[5:00]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that people have not been served well by

this piece of legislation. There is one thing I will give them credit

for that they telegraphed prior to the election. I don't think that

many people were listening. If they were, Mr. Speaker, maybe some of

them didn't understand. But the consequences are as follows: many in my

constituency — and I'm sure in every other constituency in the province

— are saying: "How are we going to continue to live where we're living?

How can we go on? Some of these grants, while insignificant to the

finances of the province, are highly significant to the people that are

renting those accommodations. I have talked to people in the last while

who have been placed in this position prior to the enactment of this

piece of legislation. They were placed in this position by virtue of a

letter from this government to the federal government telling them to

ignore any requests that people make in their income tax forms because

they are bringing in legislation — not that it's enacted, but this is a

new form of legislation. It's retroactive not only in terms of the

commencement date, but also in terms of being put in place before the

legislation was ever put before this Legislature. Imagine a government

with that kind of arrogance. Maybe it was shortsighted and maybe there

was no planning, but I wonder. I think it's something worse than that;

I think it's a lack of concern at all about that constituency of needy

people out there who were benefiting from the fact that there had been

some refuge, some assistance, with their rents. They haven't got it any

longer. They haven't had it since before the budget. They haven't had

it since before the election. Yet now we're debating it in this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I go home virtually every weekend to my home in New Westminster

where I talk to my constituency office and people. One of the real

hurts that people are enduring is as a result of this policy. It's not

a result of this legislation, because the legislation is just being

debated now in second reading. It was never a priority for the

government to bring it forward immediately they were elected. It wasn't

priority enough, Mr. Speaker, for them to bring th