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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Harbour Board Repeal Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On

Section I –– 1385

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 1386

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On

Section I –– 1386

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading –– 1388

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On

Section I –– 1388

Mrs. Wallace

Third reading –– 1389

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1389

Mr. Lockstead –– 1389

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1389

Division –– 1389

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act (Bill 29). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Phillips)

On

Section I –– 1390

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading –– 1390

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 17). Commit-

tee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 6 –– 1390

Mr. Howard

section 7 –– 1391

Mr. Howard

section 12 –– 1391

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

section 26 –– 1392

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 1393

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

Heinrich)

On

Section I –– 1393

Mr. Rose

Mr. Howard

Mr. Veitch

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like members to join me in

welcoming Ken and Shirley Cotton from Sparwood, British Columbia, to

the House this morning.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Leading us in prayers this morning was

Archdeacon Greenhalgh of St. Matthias parish. I believe it is correct

to say still of St. Matthias parish, although he has very recently

retired. Perhaps the House would not only thank him for today but also

wish him well in his well deserved retirement.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MS. SANFORD: I'm somewhat concerned that under

section 1,

with the repeal of the Harbours Board itself and the distribution of

the assets now under the jurisdiction of the Harbours Board, some 4,000

acres of the best farmland in British Columbia will be transferred to

the B.C. Development Corporation instead of the Agricultural Land

Commission. I think that's unfortunate. When I mentioned this earlier,

Mr. Chairman, during the second reading of this particular bill, I

mentioned that to me....

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

section 1 is quite specific, and I think

the assets would be better discussed under

section 5.

MS. SANFORD: Yes. I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, so if you can just bear with me for one moment....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What section?

MS. SANFORD:

Section 1 –– I feel that the board as outlined

here and the corporation, meaning the B.C. Development Corporation, should not

be the B.C. Development Corporation. I feel that when those assets are transferred,

namely 4,000 acres of the best farmland, they should not go to the B.C. Development

Corporation as required in

section 1, the

interpretation

section of this particular

bill. I feel that it is essential that that prime farmland not go to a corporation

that is concerned about industrial development but rather to the Land Commission,

which is concerned with the administration and preservation of farmland in British

Columbia. It makes eminent sense that the B.C. Development Corporation should

not be responsible for that land, but rather the Land Commission and those people

who are concerned about agricultural land and about preserving and ensuring

that that land is utilized in the best possible way for the production of food

in this province. The GVRD wants this particular move made; in other words,

that the land go to the property management division of the Land Commission

and not to the B.C. Development Corporation. The municipality of Delta, in which

this particular land is located, wants this to happen. The Land Commission itself

would much prefer to see that land there.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am moving that under

section 1 we

delete " 'corporation' means The British Columbia Development

Corporation" and substitute " 'commission' means the Agricultural Land

Commission." I have subsequent amendments that would alter other

sections of the bill to accommodate that particular change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, although the principle of this

bill does consider the transfer of assets, the agreement on second

reading was that the transfer of assets would go to a specific

corporation; this amendment would therefore fail, as it really disrupts

the principle of that

section and the principle of second reading.

MS. SANFORD: I cannot accept your ruling on that and I have to challenge it, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during the committee stage of Bill

25, on

Section 1 your Chairman made a ruling that an amendment from the

member for Comox was out of order. That ruling has been challenged.

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

Heinrich

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

[ Page 1386 ]

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Titled approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Harbour Board Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There has been quite a bit of debate in second

reading of this bill.

Section 1 of this bill is quite open and

extensive, but I do have a couple of questions to the minister before

this bill proceeds through committee.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know you will, Mr. Minister. I know you'll

try. I hope that you don't make one of your longwinded speeches — just

answer some questions. We'd all appreciate that in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier says shame. Mr. Chairman, I'm

shocked. If there's any shame attached to this bill, I think it belongs

on the heads of the government.

I want to get to my questions. They are not too complicated, so I'm

sure the minister will be able to answer them. I think there are some

11 or 12 employees still employed by the Ocean Falls Corporation. What

happens to those employees? What happens to their status? Who will be

paying them? Obviously the community will need maintenance — the plant,

the dam site, the generators. Those kinds of things will have to be

maintained and looked after. So I'd like to know what the future is and

what will become of those employees.

I know that Mr. Williston and the government, according to the

statements made by the minister, are looking at some sort of future

potential for the community. I believe they're talking with some

company at the present time, with some kind of smaller operation in

view. But in the event that doesn't happen.... I know that those

discussions have not been too fruitful to date. They may be. I simply

don't know as I'm not part of those discussions. As a matter of fact, I

hope they are. But in the event they are not, I wonder if the minister

could tell me what he foresees becoming of the assets of that

community: the brand-new school, the relatively new hospital clinic,

the fire hall with a brand-new fire engine — all kinds of things. I

could go on and on, but there's no point in me doing that. What I'm

asking the minister is: what does he foresee happening to these assets?

Will they be distributed throughout the central coast communities? Will

they be put up for auction or what? What could happen to them? I simply

don't know; the people up there don't know either. That's why I'm

asking the questions.

While I'm on the topic of assets, there are a number of people who

own their homes in Ocean Falls, primarily in the Martin Valley area,

which is approximately one mile out of Ocean Falls proper. If the

community should close down permanently, what will happen to these

people who have bought property in good faith? They are fishermen and

loggers. I don't recall offhand how many homes are directly involved. I

am going to guess approximately ten — it may be more; it may be less. I

honestly don't recall the exact number of homes in the area. But should

the community close permanently, obviously these people will be left

without utilities — primarily electricity — and these kinds of things.

What are they supposed to do in that case? Will they lose everything,

or has the corporation considered some assistance to these people?

These are the kinds of questions I am asking the minister, and

hopefully he may be able to give us some answers.

I wonder if the minister, Mr. Chairman, is prepared to let us know

at this time the final settlement that was reached with the Ocean Falls

Corporation and the Los Angeles Times .

What was the payout in that particular situation? As far as I am aware,

that figure has never been made public. Has that situation finally been

resolved? If so, could we hear about it. With that I will give the

minister the opportunity to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the committee that the questions

posed by the hon. Member for Mackenzie are quite in order under

Section

1 and also under

section 2. We can make the presumption when we arrive

section 2 that we have canvassed these items well under

section 1.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I

appreciate the member's questions. I certainly appreciate the member's

concern, because it is in his riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the member will pay attention, I want

to tell you that I appreciate your concerns. It is in your riding and I

know that you have a great deal of empathy with the residents there,

and I certainly appreciate that.

I want to point out to you, as I have said before, Mr. Member, that

this is a proclamation bill. I have said that we have to come up with

something by the end of October or we are going to have to move. We

just can't go on. Now I don't want to build up your hopes, and I

certainly don't want to mislead the Legislature, but I do want to tell

you that since we have tabled this bill in the Legislature, some of the

private sector have come forward and have said: "Hey, maybe we should

move. You know we have that small fishing operation in there." As I

say, I don't want to say, other than that, that there are some people

coming out of the woodwork knowing that we're going to close the

operation down and saying yes.

[ Page 1387 ]

[10:30]

We have tried, as you know, to get a particle-board operation in

there using cedar chips. The technology has almost been perfected. I

think that would be an ideal operation in there. I'm not entirely happy

with our lumber industry in British Columbia, due to the fact that we

haven't have some particle-chip board manufacturing facilities in this

province. They're being built in other provinces. There are two in

Alberta, one in Saskatchewan. I wouldn't want to say that it's because

of the heavy investment in plywood facilities in this province, but

certainly the demand for that particular board is growing. It's being

used in housing. I think a lot of the plywood that used to be used is

now being replaced by particle-board, which is lighter, and with some

of the new techniques, some of the new glues they have, is certainly a

better building material. I was noticing, driving around Tumbler Ridge,

as a matter of fact, that the majority of the houses and apartment

buildings being built are being built out of particle-board. So we're

still working on that.

With regard to the employees, we will be fair and have negotiations

with them. I certainly don't want to prejudge what the results of those

negotiations will be here, but we will certainly negotiate with them

and be as fair as we can.

The assets of the town, if we close it down, will have to be

mothballed. There's no other way you can do it. We're not going to

maintain a town; it will have to go into mothballs. I would like to

think that sometime in the future when the economy picks up, maybe two

or three years from now, somebody might come along.... Rather than tear

it down and do away with it, I would like to think that we'd keep it in

mothballs for a period of time until either a decision has to be made

to wipe the town out entirely, or maybe something will come along. We

still live in constant hope, of course. You know me — I'm a born

optimist.

With regard to those people who have facilities outside of town, I

think there will be enough activity that some of the utilities will

have to be kept in there. I can't really say. We'll have to cross that

bridge, Mr. Member, when we get to it. But again, we want to be fair

and do as good as we can for those people who live there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In terms of the employees, I didn't realize

that negotiations were now taking place. I presume Mr. Williston is

meeting with these employees, who are members of the CPU. Perhaps the

minister could clarify this for me: are you currently meeting with

officials of the CPU regarding the future and possible termination of

these employees?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at the present time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. That answers that question.

I would like to know too, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could

clarify for me one of the possibilities that have been put forward.

There's only one generator operating at Ocean Falls at the present time

to maintain electricity for the few people left in the community, but I

understand that there is a distinct possibility of a transmission line

being run to the Bella Bella area, which would service some 1,200 to

1,400 people. At the present time that area is being served by a

diesel-operated electrical plant. I understand that there's the

possibility that the four generators at Ocean Falls.... The water's

there, the dam is there, the generators are there. There's a

possibility that B.C. Hydro could become involved and run a

transmission line to the Bella Bella area. Obviously I can't know,

since I don't have the studies, and I don't even know if studies have

been completed, but I wonder if the minister could tell me if this

option is being looked at or at what stage this possibility is at at

the present time.

I just have one or two other small items. Well, I'm not sure they're

small, but.... There is still concern about transportation into the

area. I don't want to get into that under this bill. However, as the

minister rightly points out, this is a proclamation bill. It may not be

proclaimed free, for all I know — or perhaps for all the minister knows.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I won't let it go that long.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just for the record, the minister says he's

not going to let it go that long. In the meantime, there is a severe

transportation problem, which I'll discuss under the estimates of the

Minister of Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser). The very fact that this is

a proclamation bill — and the minister says that he's not going to let

it go longer than a year — makes it almost impossible for, say, the

B.C. Ferry Corporation or the independent transportation service now

serving the area to make any plans. What this all boils down to is that

it makes it extremely difficult for people up there to make any kind of

plans at all. Perhaps the minister can remark on that — I don't know; I

suppose it is really out of his purview in some ways.

I think that's it for the moment — particularly that one question,

Mr. Minister; I would appreciate it if you could tell me a bit about

that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to get you the details, but

it's my understanding that the generating facilities would have to be

gone over and upgraded if we're going to have any long-term use,

regardless of what we're going to have. That's one of the problems. I

would have to look further into that, and I'd be quite happy to get you

more details on it. But to my knowledge, there is no present plan to

build a line. Maybe that is something, sir, that we could look into.

But I think there would have to be some fairly costly repairs done on

the generating facilities themselves. I think I intimated to you that I

had put a deadline of October 31 in place; if we don't get something by

then, it will mean that it will be closed down before winter.

With regard to the ferry service and other transportation, that will all be taken into consideration.

With regard, Mr. Member, to the lawsuit of the Los Angeles Times ,

I know they dropped their suit. Again, I haven't got the details of the

final settlement, but I know it was a very favourable one. As you know,

I went against the recommendations of the lawyers and said: "We'll

stand pat. I don't think they've got a case." Of course, in the long

run we won out with a very favourable settlement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. When

this bill is proclaimed on, say, October 31, obviously the Ocean Falls

Corporation will no longer exist, and Mr. Williston will no longer be

chairman. Just so that we know where to go — so that the remaining

residents up there know, so the union and other people know — does that

mean that all future business involving that community will be

conducted through your office? Obviously Mr. Williston will no longer

be there. So who do we talk to? I would assume it would be yourself.

[ Page 1388 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Member, I appreciate that question as

well. I would probably put Mr. Williston on a direct contract to my

office and have him do the negotiations and clean up the last-minute

details, so that you would have somebody to deal with.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you. That clears up that problem.

I presume that Mr. Williston would not be eligible for severance pay. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter might be better discussed in another committee. The minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't really wish to comment on it. As

you know, Mr. Williston was appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I think you're getting into another

arena that's out of my jurisdiction. That will be decided by wiser men

than I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is going beyond the scope of this bill, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was rather curious. With all due respect to

Mr. Williston — and I must say that he has been very cooperative with

me, and he has worked hard on the future of this community — we are

told daily in this House that we do have restraint. If Mr. Williston is

going to be under contract to the minister with regard to these

corporations, I would suggest that one paycheque, which is all most of

us get, is enough. We don't need severance pay here, severance pay

there, with one person getting paycheques from various corporations all

over the place, particularly Crown corporations, in a time of

restraint. And I say that respectfully. I know this discussion will

take place in another arena, probably in the near future.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to inform the member that I shall

certainly take his comments into consideration when the decisions are

being made. I thank him for his suggestion.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

[10:45]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the

minister on

section 1, which is obviously intended to raise quite a sum

of money for the government. Perhaps the minister would tell the House

— I know he told us during the budget debate — just how many dollars he

is expecting to raise, and whether or not those dollars are based on

present use; or does he really believe that this increase in tax will

be a deterrent? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either.

I think this particular

section is there to put dollars in the

government's coffers and has nothing to do with trying to reduce

smoking. I think that point should be made very clear. This bill has

nothing to do with the health hazards involved in smoking, and

section

1 is here simply to raise money for the government. It has nothing to

do with trying to encourage people not to smoke, with trying to

advertise the hazards of smoking or trying to induce tobacco

manufacturers not to advertise and to be a little more outspoken about

the hazards involved in tobacco. I would like to ask the minister

whether or not he intends to use any of the funds that are raised under

Section 1 for those purposes. Is he going to embark on any such

programs to encourage people to kick the habit?

MR. CHAIRMAN . Hon. member, Ssction 1 clearly indicates pricing and not

the merits or health aspects of the argument, which I think were covered quite

adequately under second reading.

MRS. WALLACE: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, but I am

asking the minister about the dollars he's going to raise by these

increased prices: the one-cent increase in paragraph (a), a 50 percent

increase; the one-cent increase in paragraph (b), a 37 1/2 percent

increase; the one-cent increase in paragraph (c), a 20 percent

increase. I'm talking about those figures and asking the minister what

he intends to do with those dollars. How is he going to use them? Is he

simply going to throw them into general revenue to offset his deficit,

or is he going to use some of those dollars to counteract the problems

and costs incurred in health care, in fire costs, in so many things

that have been well documented?

I am asking the minister to tell the House how he's going to use

those dollars. Is he prepared to use any of that money on an education

program, or to encourage people to stop smoking and to give them some

kind of support? I want to know how those dollars are going to be used.

Is this

section simply there as a money grab on behalf of a government

desperate for funds, or does the minister really believe that by

increasing those taxes he will discourage people from smoking and that

his return will not be so great? What are his estimates? That's what

I'd like to know. If his estimate is as I think it is, and as he

indicated in the budget — that it's simply going to bring more dollars

into the government coffers — then I want to know how he's going to

spend those dollars.

[ Page

1389 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would have a little difficulty answering

all the member's questions in

section 1, which deals with the rate of

tax to be charged for the purchase of cigars — and that's all.

Section

1 is specifically and clearly the increased tax on cigars. Therefore I

would be happy to discuss that, if possible, somewhere else in

committee stage of this bill, but more likely in estimates.

I would point out that tax measures are the responsibility of the

individual holding the portfolio of Minister of Finance. Measures with

respect to health, safety and well-being are the responsibility of

other ministers — in this case, if it's health of individuals and fire

and safety, then those questions should be directed, I would think, to

the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General, at more appropriate

times.

Section 1 is cigars only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point made by the hon. minister is

extremely well taken by the committee. We have ample opportunity to

discuss other ministers' administrative abilities in estimates. Clearly

we are on a pricing

section only and we must be specific to the clause

before us while in committee on a bill.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the Minister of Finance the chairman of

Treasury Board? Did he put any of this money that he's hoping to

collect from increased taxes on cigars...? Did he agree to any request

from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for expenditures to

discourage the use of cigars in British Columbia and to advertise the

problem that smoking and breathing of second-hand smoke is hazardous

for everyone? Did he designate any of that money, in his duties as

chairman of Treasury Board, for those purposes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee has been advised

that the administrative actions of the minister or any minister will be

better discussed, and the committee will be better served, if these

discussions are held during our estimate debates and not on a bill such

as the one before us now.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

COMPANY REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Rising to move second reading and

supporting the bill, I will not repeat the discussions I had in Bill

30, because the two are companion bills; one can't go without the

other. So I will just forgo. I know that the members have read the

deliberations I made on Bill 30. Therefore I move second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister is quite correct. The bill is a companion

bill to Bill 30, which has just gone through committee stage in this House.

Quite obviously the two go together, and there would be little point in repeating

all of the arguments that we've gone through in this House on Bill 30 for

some days on end.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not going to. I don't know if you want to hear that whole awful speech again.

MR. LAUK: You gave this speech before the other bill, right?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right.

MR. LAUK: Can you give me the pages of Hansard ?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got it right here, Mr. Member.

But I might suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

there is an aspect of this bill which perhaps couldn't be covered under

Bill 30, and that is the impact of BCRIC and the privatization of B.C.

Cellulose. All of these things could be brought into the discussion of

this bill. I'm advised, however, that it would be better to save that

discussion for estimates, so I won't — although I could, and I would be

quite in order to — bring that discussion in under this bill. As I

said, I have been advised that is the best place to raise that

discussion on behalf of our caucus critic, Mr. Lea, who is

unfortunately away this morning. I don't have any questions. As the

minister said, it is an accompanying bill, and we will accept second

reading of this bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that you will certainly have lots of opportunity to ask me questions during my estimates.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 29.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

Heinrich

Richmond

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

[ Page

1390 ]

[11:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, with leave, now.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

COMPANY REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't have too many questions.

Once again, as said under Bill 30 and on second reading of this bill,

this is a companion bill to Bill 30. I would once again like to ask the

minister a couple of questions.

I understand that it is quite possible that the minister now has a response to my question regarding the Los Angeles Times . Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

I suspect that I know the answer to this, but just to clarify or to

make sure, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many employees

are actually still under the umbrella or employed — excluding the

employees of the Ocean Falls Corporation — by the B.C. Cellulose

Company, and if there are employees or members of the boards of

directors, or if there's a chairman, and if they're getting paid.

Perhaps the minister could answer these questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just the 12 employees that are at Ocean Falls, plus Mr. Williston and a secretary. We run a really lean ship over here.

In answer to the member's question with regard to the suit of the Los Angeles Times

— and I could use this opportunity to get very political, but I won't

do that — I am pleased to give the House the facts. I'm tempted to say

— but I won't — that the Leader of the Opposition got up and made a

great speech that we were going to get sued and all of this. The Times

Mirror Co. is actually the owner of the Los Angeles Times ,

and they had sued the Queen and Ocean Falls for default in not

fulfilling delivery of a newsprint contract. I didn't think that was

nice at all because, of course, it's happened before from time to time

that even newspapers haven't been able to take all of their production

in a contract, so it wasn't.... So I said: "Well, just hold tough."

Anyway, we counter sued saying that we had certain deliveries.... The L.A. Times was not paying for the former shipments. Then there was a court order. Where did the member go?

Mr. Member, I know that you are just waiting with bated breath to

hear the final details of this settlement. I want to read this into the

record. The court order was dated April 29, 1982, dismissing claims

against Ocean Falls and the Queen with no costs awarded to either

party. Now how do you like that for negotiations? It was a force

majeure situation in the eyes of the court, and a court order was

entered in the Vancouver court registry on May 3, 1982.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeat Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE

MEASURE) AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, sections 6 and 7 of the bill are

companions. The explanatory comment says it is to clarify the

circumstances under which the government can write off debts. The

provision in the act now is that an authorized or specified person....

That may not be the Minister of Finance, or it may not be anybody in

government; for all I know it may be somebody in the public service. I

can't see where there is an identification as to what a specified

person might mean. The provision now says the Treasury Board can

authorize a specific or specified person to write off debt that is due

and owing to the government. I take the word "due" in the sense of

meaning that the debt has matured and is required to be paid. If there

was, say, a term of a year of two or three or whatever that might be,

it had to wait until that period of time came along. The alteration

proposed is to eliminate the words "due and owing to the government"

and simply authorize the person to write off all or part of the debt or

obligation to the government that the authorized person considers to be

uncollectable.

I think what this amendment will do, Mr. Chairman, is simply allow

the government to play fast and loose with debts owed to the

government. It is the removal of those words "due and owing" that would

permit that to occur. It was this concept, contained in the bill before

us, that provided that wide-open opportunity for the government to

write off as uncollectable a debt of $45 million owed to the government

by B.C. Rail. The debt was incurred on one day, and when the public

accounts came out for that period it was written off on that same day,

written off probably even before B.C. Rail cashed the cheque. I think

with this change we can expect a further juggling of the finances of

this province to suit whatever obscure ideas the government may want to

present to the public about the state of the affairs of the province.

While this is not specifically germane to the point I just made, I

want to point out how the government has also intruded into the

otherwise independent operation of Crown corporations and interfered

with Crown corporations activities, with respect to writing off debts.

That's what we are talking about here. I am saying this permits the

government

[ Page 1391 ]

to play fast and loose even more than they have

done so in the past. For instance, there was a $2 million debt, in

round figures, owed by B.C. Steamship Company to B.C. Ferry

Corporation, incurred by that foolish process that the Premier and the

government went through a few years ago about travel between here and

Seattle, when they were using hydrofoils and renovating vessels from

B.C. Ferry Corporation, taking them off one run and putting them on the

other and saying that the Marguerite was useless and unsafe, even when

the Premier's mother was travelling on it. As a result of that a $2

million debt was incurred and was carried on the books of B.C. Ferries

as due and payable.

The Crown corporations committee, which is, in terms of its staff

operation, anyway, going to be killed — murdered, I suppose, is the

appropriate political term — in its report, and maybe one of the

reasons that committee staff has been fired is that it was doing too

good a job in examining the chicanery that was going on in the finances

of this province, as far as Crown corporations were concerned.... The

committee in its 1982 annual report found it unusual that one Crown

corporation did not honour a commitment to another, particularly when

both of them recognized the debt as being receivable. Essentially what

that writeoff was was a windfall gain to B.C. Steamship Company of $2

million and — I don't know if you can use the words "windfall loss" — a

loss to B.C. Ferry Corporation of the same $2 million. I submit that

could only have come about by interference in the affairs of those

corporations by the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board or somebody who

handles these particular items. I submit this change will permit the

government to carry on further trying to hoodwink the public about debt

and the state of the financial and fiscal affairs of this province and

of its Crown corporations.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. HOWARD:

Section 7 is the same as

section 6 in its essence

and in its impact. It is interesting to note that nobody on the

government side had a word to say about what I had just advanced.

Obviously silence is agreement in that one.

[11:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member. I

was going to respond to his remarks under

section 6, but 7 is a

companion section. Currently only debts which are due and owing may be

which have been satisfied by the recipient, in terms of the process of

the loan, cannot be extinguished. That is all that these sections

achieve.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section dealing with the

increase in the homeowner grant. A number of my colleagues have spoken

at great length about how intrinsically unfair this increase is,

because it hits the segment of our community that can least afford it.

I would like to suggest again to the minister that this

section should

be deleted. I have not prepared an amendment to this effect, because my

experience in the past with amendments is that they are ruled in order

but then they are not accepted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Then they are shot down.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The Provincial Secretary agrees with me on that.

But I think it's worth raising this issue with the minister once

again. Although a $25 increase may not seem like a lot of money to most

people, the very group of people who are eligible for paying $125 are

the ones who can least afford that to be increased to $150. I would

like the minister to respond to this and explain why that group is the

group singled out for the increase in the tax in that area.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with this in closing

debate on second reading, and the member and I disagree. In fact, I

think the member has based her remarks on some incorrect assumptions.

It is true that in some cases the increase in the minimum property tax

from $125 to $150 will have an impact on individuals who are on modest

income, but I pointed out to the House the other day — and I remind the

member again today — that in her rush to express concern about this she

overlooks the fact that anyone 65 years of age and over who owns his or

her home, and anyone who is designated under the act as handicapped,

will continue to pay the $1 minimum property tax. This new minimum is

going to affect about 50,000 properties province-wide.

I appreciate that the member is an urban member, as I am largely.

But many of the properties that are so affected are rural properties,

where the property tax levy is relatively low. What will occur, I

think, is that the member and I will agree to disagree on this.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for repeating

his comments about 65 years of age and over, because it gives me an

opportunity to set him straight and let him know that I realize that it

did not affect those people. However, there are a number of older

people who are not yet 65 years old. It's true that most of the people

who will be affected by this increase may be living on rural

properties. Can the minister tell me whether any kind of research has

been done, in terms of need, to find out how many people are going to

be affected by this increase who aren't really in a financial position

to deal with it? Has any research been done? You mentioned that there

is a group for which it will be a hardship. How many people would that

involve?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated to the member in this

section

that I appreciate that an increase in minimum property tax will have an

impact on some who have moderate incomes. I cannot provide a precise

number. As the member and the committee will know, there is no means

test with respect to the homeowner grant, and it would therefore be

difficult to identify those who perhaps should not receive the

homeowner grant by reason of very high income. This government believes

in the fact that the homeowner grant is a measure of assistance towards

property owners. This is an increase only in the minimum amount

payable. I cannot provide the member with the information she seeks.

MS. BROWN: In closing debate on second reading, Mr. Chairman,

the minister indicated that there was a possibility that this increase

could in fact even be increased. Prior to any

[ Page 1392 ]

other increases being introduced, will there be a

study to find out the number of people this will create an even greater

hardship for? Will the government be making any kind of arrangement to

lessen the impact of that hardship?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in the event that another

increase is given consideration at some time, I'm sure that I will have

had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I was being very candid with the House the other

day in closing second reading. I cannot say with certainty that there

will be an increase. We have the 1983-1984 measures in front of us in a

variety of forms. I was simply expressing the personal view that over

time the minimum property tax had been left untouched for too long, and

in this portfolio I have attempted to increase it gradually and

relatively regularly. I think it is probably beyond the scope of the

section, but I restate that I see no reason to alter that general

philosophical approach; perhaps not next year but in the year

following. But I cannot commit not to do it, nor indicate the time when

it might happen again.

MR. COCKE: I guess that's probably saying everything. The

minister indicates that they will continue this policy of increasing

the amount of tax payable, and he says he's doing so without any

research to find out whom it's hurting. I find that shameful. It's very

difficult to understand why a government whose policy develops over the

years.... It's not as though this is the first time this has occurred.

Yet he stands up in the House and admits that he doesn't know the

impact. He admits that 50,000 people are affected. Of those 50,000

people, I'm sure a very significant number are in the group that he

calls the moderate-income group — the people who are struggling to keep

their homes and to pay their taxes. The minister stands up and says,

"We will very likely go on with the policy that we have adopted." The

whole question of the homeowner grant in the first place was to protect

people and their properties — to hold those properties so that they

didn't have to sell and get out of them and then find themselves in a

situation where a landlord is their new master.

This retrogressive way of doing business is the kind of thing that's

permeating government policy from one end to the other. Increasing

health-user fees and all those kinds of things is exactly the same as

you find in

section 12 of this act. It's unfortunate that the minister

acknowledges that he knows not what he does, yet he does it. More could

be expected of a government. They seem to have all sorts of money for

all sorts of things, but not for research in areas of grave concern.

This is an area of grave concern to the opposition, if not to the

government.

Sections 12 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

MS. BROWN: I know that my colleague the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke at great length on this section, and so did

1. He probably wants to take further

part in this debate, if he's

listening. I will speak until he arrives.

Section 26 deals with full-time equivalents — is that the section,

Mr. Minister? We don't call public sector workers people anymore; we

now call them FTEs. We're not firing people anymore; we're eliminating

full-time equivalent positions. We're using euphemisms. At least

Michael Walker was honest in addressing a group of people in Regina

last night, as recorded on the news. He mentioned that his

recommendation to the British Columbia government was that it would

have to fire at least 8,000 public sector workers, and that he hoped

that other provincial governments would follow suit. However, the

Minister of Finance tells us that the government is not firing people;

it is eliminating full-time equivalent positions, as though a full-time

equivalent position is a non-person, just a thing.

All this amendment does is give the government an opportunity to

camouflage what it is actually doing, which is firing people, and to

camouflage what is actually happening in terms of the ministries' new

ways of reporting the estimates. Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely

impossible to tell by looking at your estimates book which programs

still have people working in them and which programs have completely

disappeared, or how many people are actually working for the government

in contracting-out situations. That's not covered by this amendment,

either.

In introducing this piece of legislation, the minister told us that

the reason that this amendment was brought in was because originally

reporting did not include auxiliary and part-time workers, and so the

decision was made to go with this new form of talking about full-time

equivalents rather than talking about employees. As I pointed out to

the minister when I took my

part in the debate, most of the jobs of the

people in the Attorney-General's ministry who are being fired are being

contracted out, and there is absolutely nothing in this

section to show

how many jobs are being contracted out, how many people are still going

to be on the public payroll in the form of contractees — or

contractors, whatever the term is. The only thing this amendment does

is give the government an opportunity to hide information and hide the

facts. We've listened to all these speeches about how much the public

service has increased. What the government has never done is admit that

most of the increase has taken place during its term of office. The

increase in the public service took place between 1976 and 1983, so

they've created the problem and they're turning around and blaming the

workers for the fact that they think there are too many people employed

in the public sector.

[11:30]

I'm opposed to this amendment, and I would like to suggest that we

should go back to the original way of designing our estimates:

reporting on the manpower in the various ministries and programs and

expanding that to include the number of people who are involved in

contract positions with the government. If we really want to have an

accurate picture, we have to use the original system and add to that

the auxiliary workers, part-time workers and the number of people who

will be employed by the government in the form of contracts, not this

new system which doesn't tell us anything at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 26 pass?

MS. BROWN: Isn't the minister going to respond? That's the height of arrogance, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No personal reflections, please. Does the member wish to continue speaking?

[ Page 1393 ]

MS. BROWN: It's not a personal reflection, Mr. Chairman. I

just wondered if the minister would like to respond. I've made a

brilliant suggestion; now what is he going to say?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There may be a very sharp division of opinion on that. This is a restatement of positions in the estimates, that's all.

Sections 26 to 41 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act,

1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

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

section 1.

MR. ROSE: The

interpretation

section is a very broad one, Mr.

Chairman, and there are some interesting ideas in it. It calls, among

other things, for the repealing of the

definitions of the Academic

Council, the Management Advisory Council, the Occupational Training

Council and the Universities Council. If you repeal the

definitions,

then by definition you repeal the councils. As I indicated in my talk

yesterday, this party is not opposed to the elimination of those

councils, but we are opposed to the bill, and we intend to try to

improve it. If we can't improve it, then we're going to vote against it.

I don't know what you seem to be nervous about, Mr. Chairman,

because I am certainly attempting to keep myself completely confined to

the clause. You seem to have the mike at the ready. It's almost like

you're trying to be the fastest gun in the west. If you'd stop fiddling

with your microphone.... I find it somewhat distracting but I realize

that you don't mean to intimidate a new and untried member.

I welcome the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) back from his recess. It is nice to see him in the House again.

Mr. Chairman, we're concerned about this bill generally. To us it

raises that whole spectre of government centralization. We are

concerned about that, because we feel we should have shared power and

shared decision-making. Decisions are better made by the will of the

people, as broadly based as possible. The bill before us savages that

concept and for that reason we are concerned about it. We're concerned

because it is a part of the centralization mania, I would say, which I

don't think is going to be good for our province. The government would

say: "We're elected to govern and therefore it is up to us to govern."

I agree with that concept and I don't think it's up to an opposition

party to hold things up unduly; but I do think it's important to have

reasonable, sensible, judicious debate, rather than having things

rammed through holusbolus, and I do think it is important that the

opposition be prepared to offer suggestions for improvement.

While I'm on my feet, I'd like to say that I intend, along with my

colleagues, to put forward at least four amendments to this bill. I

feel — and so do they — that it is unsupportable at the moment. It is

part of a policy that we object to. It's not our job, as I say, to hold

up legislation unduly, but it is our job to point out things that are

not, in our view, to the benefit of the public, or to prevent the

government from rushing headlong into dumb things that are going to

make it difficult for people and, for that matter, for the government

itself. So we intend to see to it, Mr. Chairman, that this doesn't

happen in this case. This morning's Province ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I would remind the hon. member

that debate in the committee stage of the bill is specifically relevant

to the clause before us at the time. We are currently debating

section

1 of the bill. Does the member have an amendment, or does the member

wish to address specifically

section 1? If not, we can carry on.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman,

section 1 is a very broad

clause. It's an

interpretation clause. I understand that I have, on

each of these clauses, a half-hour, if I wish to debate these clauses —

each clause if I wish to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One must be relevant.

MR. ROSE: The matter of relevance is a matter of judgment,

Mr. Chairman. And I can quote to you from Beauchesne advice on

parliamentary rules, given by that eminent expert, to the Chair and to

people who are...not only to the speaker, but to the Chair, that the

person who is speaking should be given the benefit of the doubt. I

implore you to do just that in this case. I think it's important. This

bill, and this particular clause, is part of a whole package towards

centralization and the removal of the democratic process, in terms of

the management of school boards, college boards, municipalities and the

works. I think that under that broad aegis, Mr. Chairman — and I would

certainly not want to quarrel with your

interpretation — virtually

anything to do with this bill or the package is relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be a good remark to make during

second reading, hon. member. However, we are in committee. We are

dealing with a

section that deals with three councils, and I would ask

the member if he could make his remarks relevant to that section.

The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Could I draw to your attention that the

section before us

does seek to repeal the

definitions of more than three things, I must submit:

(1) "academic council, " (2) the definition of " corporation,

" (3) the definition of "council, " (4) the definition of "management

advisory council, " (5) the definition of "occupational training council,

" and (6) "Universities Council;" and further, under part (b),

the definition of "board, " by striking out certain words. I think

if the Chair would look at the act that it is seeking to amend, and see just

what those words are defined to mean.... I draw your

[ Page 1394 ]

attention to the word "council," for instance. It

means, as the context requires, the management advisory council, the

occupational training council and the academic council established

under this act. So that's where it means three councils. "Management

advisory council" is extremely broad in its application: the management

of the college. I submit that the member is entitled to go into that

aspect of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order as stated by the hon. member

for Skeena is well taken. So is the hon. member's argument, because it

was quite specific to the bill. If we can maintain that type of

argument during our debate on this section, parliament will be well

served.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I hope that henceforth in my remarks

I will impress you with my direction, my lunge towards specificity and

my desire to be specific, responsible, relevant and not repetitious.

I'm going to say that many times.

In dealing with these various councils, it has been asserted by some

that the abolition of these councils, which we don't oppose per se, was

a cost-cutting measure, because if you remove — and, if you like, I'll

repeat their names — academic councils, corporation councils and the

various other ones — I won't go through them all because they're know

quite well to everyone, including the minister and the Premier — it

could be a cost saving. It's also probably an administrative saving in

many ways with which my colleague will regale us as soon as I sit down.

But what I was about to get to was the point that government

restraint measures will not necessarily save money. This might be one

of them. Just because you eliminate certain kinds of councils that have

been traditional, or cut back on college boards, it does not follow

that you're necessarily going to save money. I wanted to support that,

when I was called to order a little while ago, by quoting from this

morning's Province . I

realize, and I admit, that I didn't put it into a context, perhaps,

that would cause the Chairman to embrace the thought that I was in

order; he might even jump to the conclusion that I was out of order.

But if you think about it, you'll see the link between the business of

abolishing councils and restraint.

Professor Dobell, director of the University of Victoria School of

Public Administration, teaching there the art of government to civil

servants, says this about cutting back and government restraint, and

its effect not only on educational matters but on the province itself.

He believes: "...that overall restraint measures will raise rather than

lower the cost of government, and that they have already done lasting

harm to the province."

Further on in the

article he pointed out that the things offered to

the general public through this government, will perhaps have the

reverse effects — reverse to their intended effects — and he does that

I think eloquently: "The probable real cost would be in labour

relations climate. They can't solve their problems through

confrontation; they have to recognize the legitimacy of the

consultative process." That's extremely important, and that's one of

the things I want to add to this clause. I have no objection to the

deletion of the others, but I am concerned that if we get into a

situation where we have some other less democratic means of operating a

board or a council, or of providing the information that these other

councils did in the past without consultation, it may well lead to a

collapse of morale on the part of the staff and faculty of these

colleges.

[11:45]

Beyond that, we would have an example of thing s

being imposed on people which will cause them to become not more

productive or more efficient, if we could get a definition from the

minister on that subject, but quite the reverse. That is the point I

was trying to make when I was urged to seek my chair for discussion of

whether or not I will be in order. The whole program is aimed first at

centralizing power in an overwhelmingly dominant executive, and

secondly at making the social climate of B.C. safe and attractive to

foreign investment by limiting any source of countervailing power

outside the ownership of property. That is what is at the root of our

debate here with this bill. There will be no countervailing power from

the boards or councils, because only those people who are well

disciplined will be appointed to them. That is our fear: that you will

have puppets on the board. Not that all appointees are necessarily

going to respond that way. There are a few independent-minded people.

We even have the odd person vote against his party on certain issues,

but it's rare. It's rare to see somebody stand up and vote against his

party. That's how powerful these forces are.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we have no objection as a party to

repealing the

definitions of the following councils, because it was our

position in the first place that they shouldn't have been there. So

naturally we are not going to object to that. But I would like to put

forward an amendment for your consideration. I think that it's

important for us to be positive. This amendment, without reading it for

you, has to do with the consultative process. I think a lot of these

impasses that we encounter could be avoided if we consulted with the

people affected.

The minister has said that he is willing to consult.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Now the minister is willing to consult.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he said that, and he reiterates he had.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I saw his mouth open, but I didn't hear what he said.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have.

MR. ROSE: You have consulted. Have you changed anything because of those consultations?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We're doing this because of it.

MR. ROSE: You mean the bill is a result of consultation? You're not going to put forward the bill for people to deal with?

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I think what we need then is a

better definition of consultation. That's the motion I offer. And I'll

tell you why, because consultation can be defined.

[ Page 1395 ]

MR. MOWAT: Read the amendment.

MR. ROSE: No, I'm sorry, I'm not ready to read the amendment.

You want to make a speech? Make a speech on your own time and not on my

time. Don't try to clutter up my act or make me speak longer when I can

deal with this thing expeditiously. All that happens, Mr. Chairman,

when someone heckles is that it puts a person off what he intended to

say. It distracts him, makes him nervous and he loses his train of

thought. If you want to participate in the debate, I think it's free

and open for you to do so, and I invite you to do so right after I'm

finished here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: I would like to offer a definition of consultation for the minister. It says here:

"Before initiating any new strategy or new program,

the principal should confer fully and frankly with all teachers of the

staff who will be affected by the new strategy or the new program.

Obviously, if the new strategy or new program will affect only a

segment of the staff, then that segment is the group whose considered

opinion the principal should seek. However, if the impact of the new

program is to affect, to influence, to impact upon the strategies or

the programs in many other parts of the school, then the principal

should confer with as many teachers as will be affected.

"Corporate action by the staff does not abrogate the

principal's responsibility to undertake independent administrative

action within his or her terms of reference. Most issues can be

sensibly discussed and decided by the staff. Staff councils, staff

committees, staff meetings, small group meetings, department head

meetings and block meetings can contribute immensely to the total

knowledge and direction of the school.

Here "conferring" and "consulting means" are defined:

"...first, seeking advice of those to whom consultation

is addressed and listening with care, attention and understanding to the advice

proffered; second, weighing heavily the advice considered and then, if possible,

jointly seeking a solution to which all involved can agree."

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are absolutely fascinated by that and

famished for the knowledge of its source. I quote from a very important

document put out by the Ministry of Education. It's called

"Administrative Handbook for Elementary and Secondary Schools." This is

a pretty official source to me. If a definition of "consultation" is to

be found there for the schools of British Columbia, then I think it's

good advice for the minister as well. [Applause.]

I hope you won't subtract that applause from my total time, Mr. Chairman.

It would also be excellent advice for the minister in dealing with

not only the schools and the trustees but also the colleges and their

faculties. So that is exactly what I'm suggesting, and you haven't been

doing that. You've been talking to them, and listening and smiling, but

you haven't done a damn thing to change anything that I can see.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I withdraw the adjective to "thing" because I've

horrified the House Leader. You can fill in the blanks and put in your

own adjective, if you wish.

MS. BROWN: It's not an adjective.

MR. ROSE: I know what an infinitive is. That's when we're going to get some change in this legislation infinitely.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this amendment by adding the

following definition to clause 1, the

interpretation clause. We seek to

delete several

definitions here, and we'll probably have to renumber

the clauses. However, it could be clause (c). We would add a clause (

c) which not only doesn't delete a definition, but adds a definition of

consultation from "Administrative Handbook for Elementary and Secondary

Schools." The advice is to the minister. Consultation means seeking the

advice of those to whom the consultation is addressed, listening with

care, attention and understanding to the advice proffered, weighing

heavily the advice considered, and then if possible jointly seeking a

solution to which all involved can agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you moving that amendment?

MR. ROSE: Yes, I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a definition

section correctly

defines a thing or a body or something like that. We have a definition

here defining an attitude, which is well beyond the scope of the bill.

I rule the amendment out of order.

MR. VEITCH: I don't know whether it would be better for me to

discuss what I wish to discuss under

Section 1 or

section 24. As the

member speaking before me pointed out,

Section 1 does repeal several

councils — repeals the definition. I would take it that it would mean

that the councils would be repealed as well. With that in mind, I want

to compliment the minister on bringing in this section. It is one of

the most important things that has ever happened in post-secondary

education in the last few years.

As the chief financial officer of one of the larger post-secondary

institutions in this province, I've been waiting for this

section for a

long time. The Academic Council, the Management Advisory Council and

particularly the Occupational Training Council set up a network of

unequal opportunities in this province that was unprecedented in any

educational jurisdiction in North America, I'm sure.

I've shown this to the minister before. In fact, I appeared a few

years ago before a committee of cabinet. A student at Pacific

Vocational Institute drew a cartoon...

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: I'll file that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, no exhibits, please.

[ Page 1396 ]

MR. VEITCH: ...outlining just how much red tape was produced

by these councils; how it wound through and captured the whole system

and did nothing except cost money.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak more fully on this after the lunch hour.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada