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 )

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

853 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 853

Trading in Sunmask shares. Mr. Howard –– 853

Financial assistance for intervenors before Utilities Commission. Mrs. Wallace –– 854

Future of academic tenure. Mr. Nicolson –– 854

Borrowing by B.C. Rail. Mr. Howard –– 854

Craig Aspinall and Associates. Mr. Hanson –– 855

Orders of the Day

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 856

Mr. Lauk –– 856

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Second reading

Mr. Lauk –– 861

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 867

Education Interim Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading

Mr. Lockstead –– 867

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Mr. Barrett –– 872

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a group

of people I'd like to introduce, from the village of Lions Bay: Mayor

Pollock, Alderman Langford, Alderman Wade and Don Lidstone, the city

solicitor. I would ask you all to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have guests today from the gem of

B.C., the royal city, hard-working community workers in New

Westminster, Cathy and Wes McLeod. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a special introduction

to make to the House today. In the company of my assistant, Mrs. Nina

Gray, is my wife Maud, my daughter Laurna and grandson Matthew. It is

special today because I would ask the House not only to welcome these

family members of mine, but also to offer their sympathies to them;

they are really the ones who suffer at the hands of such people as the

Leader of the Opposition, as we listened to those sleazy speeches this

morning. Those in the gallery are the ones who suffer from the sleazy

remarks we had to bear with all this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. On different

occasions the Chair has attempted to advise members that the

introduction period is one which we are beginning to stray from to some

degree. Today was another example. If members wish to make speeches or

addresses, there are other periods of time that must be ascertained,

must be determined. It cannot be in the period earmarked in our

proceedings for introductions. I commend that to all members.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, in the

gallery today we have a very personal friend of mine, a member of the

Vancouver Gyro club, Mr. Bert Gayle, vice-president of Canfor Corp.,

formerly known as Canadian Forest Products.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pleased to welcome in the galleries today

two young friends from Chemainus, the village of the festival of murals

and the closed sawmill: Miss Linda Hussey, who has made some very great

contributions to the cultural life of British Columbia through her

acrobatic dancing, and her brother, Nigel Hussey, who is a student at

Camosun College, accompanied by their mother, Mary Hussey.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd like to introduce another distinguished American

counsel who is here today in the House: Mr. Charles Hanger, with his wife Fay.

He is a distinguished counsel from San Francisco, a regent of the American Trial

Lawyers' Association, a former Deputy Attorney-General of California and

also a famous athlete from the 1940s, having been an American record-holder

in the high-jump in 1947. I ask the House to make him and his wife welcome.

Oral Questions

[2:15]

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope our time has not been deducted for that introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: I can assure you, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. The minister has made comments which imply that

where municipalities or regional districts support withdrawal of land

from the agricultural land reserve the normal process will be

circumvented. On the eve of the election the Premier went to great

lengths to deny that the government was contemplating changes to the

ALR process as now suggested by the minister. Is it the minister's

intention to overrule the promises made by the Premier and proceed with

changes to the ALR?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter may surround policy, hon. member. However, the minister may choose to answer.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The short answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: Will the minister assure the House, then, that

applications from municipalities and regional districts will continue

to go to the Agricultural Land Commission before they go to cabinet, if

there is that appeal?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There have been no changes, and procedures will flow as they have done in the past.

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The question relates to the

statement made yesterday following question period about a report of an

investigation by the superintendent of brokers, with respect to Sunmask

Petroleum trading. There was a ruling about that matter this morning,

but I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to table that

report in the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a question

that I took as notice concerning the member's question to me some time

ago. He is implying that there is a report. My response yesterday

indicated that it was an internal investigation done by the

superintendent of brokers, under his offices, and there is no "report."

He advised me of an answer to a question I took as notice and that is

all.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister advise the House what steps,

specific and detailed, the superintendent of brokers took to ascertain

whether or not there was a leak of the budget or a leak of the contents

of Bill 9?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The steps taken were adequate in the eyes of

the superintendent of brokers to give me a response which I brought to

the member yesterday in this House.

[ Page 854 ]

MR. HOWARD: It may be that the minister didn't understand the

question. I asked him if he could tell the House in detail what steps

were taken, not whether or not he or the superintendent considered them

adequate. Could he give detailed information to the House about the

steps he took?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows what

the responsibilities are of the superintendent of brokers, but I'd be

quite pleased to request the superintendent of brokers to give me the

steps he took to carry out the investigation that was requested.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR

INTERVENORS BEFORE UTILITIES COMMISSION

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister confirm that he told a

delegation yesterday it is now government policy that intervenors at

hearings before the Utilities Commission will not receive financial

assistance for research and legal representation?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The people that met with me yesterday kept

very detailed notes. I'm sure they were able to tell you exactly what I

told them. I read to them from the throne speech, which they had a copy

of, which indicates what the government's policy is. However, there was

one question which I said I would discuss with my colleagues on the

Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, and get further detail.

We have not yet had a meeting and therefore I have not responded to the

people.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is assuming that I met with these

people and that they told me certain things, which certainly I'm

unaware of, because I didn't meet with them. However, I gather he is

indicating that some restrictions will be placed. Would the minister,

as in the case of Alcan's application for the Kemano II project, at

least insist that the giant multinational corporation, with its massive

financial resources, provide financial assistance — without strings to

public-interest intervenor groups, such as B.C. Hydro did in the case

of the Site C intervenors?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware that

in the case of the Site C inquiry, the costs of the intervenors were

only some 3 percent of the total cost. In view of the fact that the

deferral of that Site C project was probably brought about almost

entirely as a result of those interventions, would the minister not

agree that the multibillion dollar saving to taxpayers by deferral of

that project is well worth the small investment for the intervention?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

FUTURE OF ACADEMIC TENURE

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. The minister has stated that

it's government policy that universities should be able to grant tenure

to new professors, and that existing agreements will be honoured. The

Provincial Secretary has stated that it is government policy that

tenure should be abolished everywhere in the public sector and that it

doesn't apply to new appointments. Can the minister clarify what the

policy of this government is for academics?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the member that

this is not a matter of government policy. It's a matter of the legislation

which speaks for itself. I would recommend that the member read the University

Act, which is a very good starting place for university policy, and then read

Bill 3. If he does those things, he'll make a very effective contribution

to the debate in the chamber because he'll understand the legislation.

I might add that there's been a tremendous amount of confusion about

this issue because people will read the press instead of reading the

legislation. If one reads stories in newspapers like the Vancouver Sun , one is bound to be confused.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary.

Since his view of the tenure of academics seems to be counter to that

of the Minister of Universities, and he has expressed the position that

it will certainly not apply to new appointments, has the minister been

reading the press or the legislation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I read the press from time to

time. They misquote my remarks from time to time as well. The only

thing I can suggest to the member is that he not only read the

legislation but that he also pass on the information he is able to

extract from that legislation to his leader, who has been debating here

for several hours, today and yesterday, misinterpreting the legislation

completely. I would suggest that the little band of socialists over

there take that legislation, go into caucus and study it, so as to be

better informed than they are right now.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a further question for the Provincial

Secretary. The Minister of Universities has said that hysterical

opponents of the bill have tried to create the impression that the bill

destroys academic tenure. The minister has pointed out on numerous

occasions that academic tenure will not be granted, particularly now.

His latest modification is in new appointments. Is the minister an

hysterical opponent of the bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I suggest that the member for Nelson-Creston

read the bill. If he has any difficulty in interpreting the bill, I

think there are a couple of lawyers over there in that gang; there's

one from Vancouver Centre and another from Vancouver East. If he has

some difficulty with the terminology, maybe they can give him an

interpretation — and maybe they can't; I don't know.

BORROWING BY B.C. RAIL

MR. HOWARD: Originally I was going to pose a question to the

Provincial Secretary, but I can see that that would be useless.

Instead, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government

recently borrowed on behalf of B.C. Rail — or took steps to support the

borrowing by B.C. Rail of — some $450 million of deadweight debt for

B.C. Rail with respect to the Tumbler Ridge branch line.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows,

all borrowings undertaken by the province or on behalf of a Crown

corporation are a matter of public record.

MR. HOWARD: The answer appears to be yes, although the minister didn't

appear to be able to say that particular word, indicating how negative and sensitive

he is about B.C.

[ Page

855 ]

Rail. Given the fact that on March 31 a year ago

the government gave $45 million of taxpayers' money to B.C. Rail and on

the same day wrote it off as uncollectable, and that the government has

taken steps to grant public funds to B.C. Rail to the extent of $70

million a year to cover the interest and other items with respect to

B.C. Rail's debt, can the minister tell the House how much additional

money will be given to B.C. Rail to cover the interest on this

additional debt?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering the first question

from the member for Skeena, I was simply attempting to abide by the

rules of this House with respect to question period. Borrowings are a

matter of public record.

Some rhetoric followed in the second question, but I assure the

member that I am certainly not nervous about B.C. Rail. On the

contrary, I am immensely pleased with the performance of B.C. Rail and

with the importance of the extension and expansion in the northeastern

part of this province, through to the port of Prince Rupert. Again, I

tell the member that all borrowings which are undertaken for any

purpose of a public nature in British Columbia are a matter of public

record and need not be asked about in question period.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to that lecture, which is beside the truth — not anywhere near it but beside it….

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. HOWARD: He can call "order" if he likes. The minister

deliberately…. The Premier should quit shaking his hand that way. He'll

give people the wrong impression of what he's doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance deliberately and consciously

refused to answer the question I posed to him, indicating how nervous

and sensitive he is. I'm the first to admit that a minister does not

need to answer a question, but his absolute refusal is certainly

revealing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure there was a

question there. Is the member imputing that borrowings do occur which

are not made public in the province of British Columbia? If so, I ask

him to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: The simple fact of the matter is there's nothing

to withdraw, and the minister knows that. He's just using that device

as a coverup for his refusal to answer to the general public.

CRAIG ASPINALL AND ASSOCIATES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary

regarding Mr. Doug Heal's cloning of his media operation in Vancouver,

in the form of Craig Aspinall and Associates. One week ago the minister

took as notice a question and promised an explanation to the House

about why it was necessary to have Aspinall and Associates run

interference for the Social Credit Party in Vancouver to clean up their

image. Why can't Mr. Heal, with his 200 employees and $18 million, do

that job? When will the explanation be forthcoming in this House?

[2:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member asks me a question about

Aspinall and Co., I believe. I want you to know, Mr. Member, that Aspinall has

not been cloned. I don't know what you mean by the cloning of this or that,

but I want to say that Aspinall has been engaged by the government on a contractual

basis, after having gone through a competition.

MR. BARRETT: How much?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition wants to know

how much. I'll tell you, the figure is substantially less than that in

the erroneous information conveyed by the first member for Victoria.

When he asked me the question in the House, he suggested that the

figure was $150,000. He was dramatically wrong, because in fact the

figure is $48,000. It's for an eight-month period, and that amount of

money will only be utilized on the basis of time spent on an hourly

basis. So that is the maximum amount of money that will be expended.

It's not $150,000, as you've suggested. The figure could be

substantially less.

MR. HANSON: Why can't Heal do it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious the member

wants to ask questions, but is not prepared to accept the answers. I'm

trying to give him the answer. I'm suggesting that the figure is liable

to be substantially less than the maximum that has been contracted for.

First of all….

MR. HANSON: Will you table the contract?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Aren't you prepared to listen? The contract

is not for the purpose suggested by that member over there when he

asked the question originally, when he suggested that the contract was

put in place for the purpose of image-building on the part of the

cabinet. There's nothing further from the truth, my friend, because the

contract is one in which these people provide a service to senior

employees of the provincial government, as well as the cabinet, by

arranging meetings on matters of importance to the people of British

Columbia, primarily in the Vancouver area. They make the facilities

available. Making facilities available by ensuring that the right size

of hall has been rented, the right number of chairs put in place, and

the right number of microphones put in place, from which people can ask

questions of ministers or officials of the government does not

constitute image-making. They're there to provide a service to the

government of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And it is required. We've engaged these

people for a maximum of $48,000, which is substantially less than the

erroneous and false figure that you suggested in your question last

week.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell had terminated question

period earlier. I draw that to members' attention, if they are

concerned about the lengthy response taking up question period.

[ Page 856 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In moving second reading of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, I can see that it is an epoch-making piece of legislation that

will hold the attention of the members of this House, keep them in

their seats in rapt interest, because it's a matter of great policy

significance, of very deep philosophical commitment. On a more serious

note, though, I would say that it is a matter of some import for

legislative reform that in this bill we are proposing to standardize a

test for what constitutes a regulation. Under the old law, in order to

determine what a regulation was, you had to go through a process known

as the "legislative nature" test and decide whether the regulation was

in fact of a legislative nature. We had orders, directives, bylaws, all

kinds of things, floating around in documents which may or may not be

decided by a legislative test to be regulations and therefore effective.

In place of that test — which was, I might say, a cottage industry

for the legal profession to unravel — we are moving to a key-word

approach. If you see a document which looks like an order or a

directive and it contains the words "prescribes" or "prescribed" in

conferring the legislative power, then that document will in law be a

regulation. The key-word test will replace all other tests. Therefore

it's been necessary in dealing with the

schedule of the bill to modify

the language in a number of existing bills to make it conform to this

test and also to make it clear that a number of bills that have

regulations or directions under them now are not in fact regulations or

may in fact be regulations. When you sort through the long schedules in

this bill, which I know that all members have done with great interest,

you will have noticed the key-word test is being employed.

The recommendations that led to the introduction of this bill came

from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and we're following the test

that is used in the federal House of Commons and also in a number of

the provinces. This approach was supported by the former

Attorney-General — my colleague, the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) —

by legislative counsel and by a host of others who have advocated a

more streamlined approach.

I think one of the other important changes of great policy

significance in this bill — and I know that you'll agree with this, Mr.

Speaker — is the removal of that enacting step known as the

"proclamation," which allowed the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

delay the operation of a statute in regulatory form by bringing into

force the statute or bringing the regulations into force later by

proclamation. The proclamation was a magnificent document which emitted

from the Sovereign and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. It was a

marvellous historic way in which legislation was delayed and brought

into force later, either in a primary or secondary way. It is with

great regret that I must say that that document is being eliminated.

That tradition is gone. I bring that reform before the House with

trepidation. I do not like the removal of the document, but I must

applaud the speed with which these will now be able to be done by

regulation as opposed to proclamation.

One of the other features of this bill is that before it is

deposited — and it becomes effective on deposit — it has to be

submitted for examination to a designated person. That will provide a

procedural and legal safeguard to ensure that we have regulations that

are intra vires, that don't constitute some unusual or unexpected use

of authority, that will not trespass unduly on some existing right or

freedom or also will not be likely to be in conflict with the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will also ensure that an adequate

form of draftsmanship has been employed before the document is accepted

for deposit. There will be that additional safeguard which statutory

regulations have had in the federal scene under the Statutory

Instruments Act of Canada for some time. That should ensure better

standardization and form of regulations before they become law and

become effective on deposit.

There are a number of other streamlinings in this bill which are, I

think, of importance. They mainly make it easier and more efficacious

to understand what a regulation is that's effective and where it is

going to be contained and deposited. It will be published, as always,

in the Gazette, and it will put beyond doubt considerations which may

arise later that something is or is not an effective regulation. It

will create greater certainty and should enable people who work in the

regulatory field to better understand what is subordinate legislation

and what is merely a directive of government and not a rule of law. It

should generally produce better regulatory and administrative

government.

A substantial number of consequential amendments have had to be made

in the bill as well. All of those have been carefully discussed with

the ministries involved. To facilitate the drafting of other bills this

session, consideration has been given to introducing the Regulations

Act early so that the language in those other bills referring to the

bill coming into force by regulation will be appropriate with the

language of the Regulation Act. Apart from the removal of the ancient

step of proclamation, I know the members opposite will be favourably

disposed towards this epoch-making piece of legislative reform.

Therefore with great pride I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

MR. LAUK: Well, I wish it were that simple. First, let me say

that the opposition is opposed not on the grounds mentioned by the

Attorney-General, but because of the

interpretation which can be placed

on some of the sections involving important questions of legal and

political principle that have come down to us over generations.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm surprised that the two learned members of the

Treasury bench are chuckling. I'm wondering how much attention they've

paid to some of the sections in question.

It is one thing to correct an anomalous situation over many years….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm arguing ex cathedra. Ultra ex cathedra, if you wish.

[ Page 857 ]

Mr. Speaker, I think they've failed to note that to rectify an old

anomalous situation — that is to say, flipping a coin as to whether

something is properly publishable as a regulation, or is an order or

directive that would not require such a promulgation — is one thing,

but I would suggest that other parts of these amendments are not

rectifying that anomalous situation but indeed are creating a very

serious and dangerous situation with respect to the promulgation of

regulations. I refer to the two aspects of most concern, one of which

you should have a close look at. One is the retroactivity of

non-taxation regulations. It has been well accepted by the committees

looking into these propositions — the one during the war and the most

recent one — that retroactivity in regulations may be an important

aspect, but it has to be stated within the taxation statute.

[2:45]

There's one member in the press gallery. I was a little worried. The

dean of the press gallery is present. I want to speak to the dean. Mr.

Dean, I hope other people are listening, or will read the Blues. This

thing is being passed off as a housekeeping measure, when in fact the

amendment allowing for retroactivity of all regulations is a serious

amendment, and one we cannot support. If you allow for retroactivity by

the cabinet in passing their own legislation…. And that's what a

regulation is. It's the same as a statute: a proper delegation of

authority from the chamber to the cabinet. But the chamber has never

granted retroactivity unless expressly stated in the actual statute

under what terms and for what limited period of time, and it has never

been granted for anything other than a royalty or taxation statute.

I know these are complex legal issues, but they go to the heart of

the matter of the responsibility of government to this chamber. A

regulation is legislation, and to make it retroactive is a serious

departure from traditions developed as long ago as the statutes of

Queen Anne, and even earlier, which established the concept, delegatus

non potest delegari. That means the chamber cannot delegate its

ultimate authority to another body. We were elected as representatives

of the people to pass on legislation, and we cannot delegate that

authority to any other group, including the cabinet of the day. That is

a rule of the British parliamentary system that has never been

transgressed.

So we watch, with a great deal of care, what kind of power the

government takes unto itself from this chamber. I say that the

retroactivity

section offends the maxim, delegatus non potest delegari.

The challenge in the courts would be relatively straightforward, if

that retroactivity were used by the cabinet — which seems to be allowed

under these amendments — for anything other than under a specific

statute, and for other than that specific purpose having to do with

retroactivity.

To give you an example, to clarify it in your mind, I want to remind

you of this proposition that you knew well, of delegatus non potest

delegari, and you have ruled on it on many occasions. The question

before us is this. If a taxation statute — let's talk about the

infamous tobacco tax act — were to come into place partly through

regulation, subsequent to the third reading and royal assent of the

actual taxation amendment bill, that regulation can be allowed if…. A

retroactivity measure, if it is specifically stated in the amendment

bill affecting the taxation measure…. As I read these amendments, we

are passing into law a delegation of authority that will allow the

cabinet, on any regulation at any time, to make the regulation

retroactive without that specific power being mentioned in individual

statutes.

I know it sounds complicated, but what I am telling you about is a

very important departure from British parliamentary tradition, and it

is something to be avoided. Only one other province has tried this —

and the courts have struck it down, if I recall correctly — and that is

the current government of Quebec.

I would say it is loathsome and offensive to the British

parliamentary system and to us elected under that system to allow the

government this kind of sweeping regulative power. I think we should

oppose it on that basis alone, but there is a second — and even as

powerful — criticism of these amendments, and that has to do with the

publication of regulations. If you will notice, the key sections that

involve the question of principle involved are the publication sections

— sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 — of the proposed amendments.

On the one hand we see that these amendments call for certain

publication of the regulations. Publication is important, because in

the old days, a few hundred years ago, the queen-in-council or the

monarch-in-council could pass orders and regulations that affect

whether or not a subject of the realm is obeying the law. It was found

that the authorities would arrest somebody in some cases, charge

somebody with an offence, and he would say: "What offence?" "Well,

there is this regulation." The citizen would say: "Well, I didn't see

that regulation. Was it published?" They say: "There is no requirement

for a regulation to be published. Obviously this regulation has been

signed by the cabinet, and therefore you are charged and you are

convicted." The courts would convict, until it was established under

the parliamentary system that no regulation or statute or law could be

enforced against a subject of the realm unless it was published — not

just a technical publication, not going out at midnight with the town

crier and saying, "It's against the law now to walk your dog," but a

publication that was real and effective, that was likely to reach or

ought to have reached people who had a reasonable interest in such

matters in the community.

Now what do the sections exempting publication under these new

amendments mean? These exemptions mean that there can be, in the

judgment of the so-called registrar of regulations, a bureaucrat — not

elected by the people of British Columbia; a person not appointed to

judge such matters by the government of the day, in terms of the

courts, with the proper appeal system and open public hearings, but a

registrar of regulations who will make a private judgment, it says

here, in consultation with a lawyer appointed by the Attorney-General

to review such matters. We assume that will happen. Also without that

reference to any expert, the registrar can decide that certain

regulations need not be published.

Not only does this affect offence statutes, where someone could be

fined or imprisoned, but it could also affect regulations where a

person involved in daily business activity, without knowledge, because

the registrar has decided not to publish these regulations…. He is not

required to publish them, if he makes a judgment that he does not need

to. In other words, he could say, "If this group of people who may be

affected…" and makes the judgment first of all about who "may" be

affected; that is a judicial judgment. He makes the second judicial and

legislative judgment that those people who may be affected probably had

heard or had had it

[ Page 858 ]

published to them, or would have, if they were reasonably diligent, found out about them.

He then decides on that basis — that's a judicial finding on his

behalf; it's a delegation of authority — not to publish. There could be

— and indeed will be — people working in that area of the law who are

not aware of the regulations. That is why we have traditionally

demanded that a law not be a law unless it's promulgated, and

"promulgated" the courts have said — includes publication. So far that

only includes publication in the Gazette . In reality it could mean publication elsewhere. But publication there must be.

It is very important that we not just accept these amendments

holus-bolus as a housekeeping measure. They make serious changes to our

law and to our parliamentary traditions, which all hon. members, I

know, were not aware of I invite them to become aware of these

important changes. The proclamation being changed to a regulation, I

suppose, is not important, except that every day we are losing some of

the traditions of our system that, of course, do not have a democratic

impact on us. But they are traditions which have been cherished by many

people. The late hon. member from Prince Albert — and I mean no

disrespect to him when I refer to his years of energy and commitment to

defence of the Crown and symbols of the Crown…. I can imagine what, if

he were in this House today, he might say about this government's

dreadful attempt to embarrass Her Majesty and Canada in right of the

Crown, etc, etc. Well, comic as we thought it at times, it's a bit sad

that the royal proclamation is now being abolished for most purposes in

British Columbia — in British Columbia. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can

you, who represent us to Her Majesty, sit there and allow proclamations

to fall by the wayside? I suppose that is housekeeping. But we should

all be on the record as asking the Attorney-General why that is

necessary. Why not the proclamation? A regulation has to go to the

Lieutenant-Governor anyway for his initials. Why not the form of the

proclamation? It's part of our tradition that can be seen. I make no

argument that it affects a democratic or legal right — of course it

doesn't — to change a proclamation to a regulation.

Back to the two most offensive sections of this amendment statute.

Again, I say that the retroactivity must be closely examined — I want

to examine that in some detail in a moment — and the lack of

publication at the judicial discretion of an appointed official. As I

understand it, the regulations come into force on the day of deposit

rather than the day after filing; that's not particularly offensive. It

allows for retroactive filing if the minister deems it to be in the

public interest; I'm rather concerned about that. It says here:

"…before actual date of deposit." Far broader powers are given to the

minister than recommended by the Uniform Law Conference report, in

terms of my reading of that report. The committee had recommended that

retroactivity be allowed in the specific cases that I mentioned:

"rentals, royalties or other payments which cannot be calculated until

after the registration of a regulation. However, there should be a

limitation. In no case should a filed regulation come into force before

the day of filing, unless expressly authorized in the relevant statute"

— which allows for the rental, the royalty and so on — "and a

registered regulation come into force before the day of regulation."

This was not asked for by the committee. It makes me very suspicious

that total retroactivity of regulations is now in the amendment. It is

a very fearful prospect.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MR. LAUK: That's an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. An

hon. member has gratuitously offered me a challenge. This is very

interesting. I will perhaps deliver this same example to my next law

class, assuming that they're not all in jail retroactively — or

assuming that I'm not. As an example, as an analogy, you can pass

regulations under the proposed Public Sector Restraint Act. There's a

section i there allowing for the regulations. If we allow this much

delegation of authority to the cabinet, the cabinet can pass

regulations concerning compensation in some cases, they can

discriminate in others, and they can do it retroactively — all by

regulation. We need not even have announcements or publication of these

regulations, according to this new amendment. It compounds the

injustice of Bill 3.

Take any other statute. Take, for example, the agricultural land

reserve. What if a regulation were passed affecting whether or not the

criteria for allowing land under the agricultural land reserve was

being changed by the cabinet? For example, let's pick some land at

random — some land in Delta. It could be in any other place, but let's

pick Delta. Let's call it, for want of any other name, Spetifore. Let's

say there is land called Spetifore in Delta. Under ordinary criteria,

by statute and regulation, the land in Delta called Spetifore is, up to

this time, considered land that is properly within the agricultural

land reserve. The cabinet, in its wisdom, and the Agricultural Land

Commission and the Greater Vancouver Regional District and everybody

else, except perhaps a handful of people, are of the opinion that it

should remain. The cabinet, in its wisdom, however, changes the

regulations and says that only triple A — a new category — land will

remain absolutely within the ALR and that land called number I or

number 2 land, such as Spetifore, can be removed. It's just as an

example, unlikely as it may seem.

Those involved — let's say it's an investment company — wish to

invest in the land not as an agricultural piece of land but as a

developmental piece of land for housing or industry, because we know of

the exigencies of the corporate veil…. Let's call such an investment

company the Mask Company. Because Delta's very sunny, let's call it the

Sunmask Company. Well, Sunmask may be investing. It's important for all

of those people interested in the market, who are investing in Sunmask;

it's important for those people who may be investing in land in and

around the agricultural land reserve Spetifore land; it may be

important for those who already own the agricultural land reserve

Spetifore land or who have talked about possibly owning or developing

on that land — it's important for all of these people, including the

public, to know whether the regulation concerning the criteria of

agricultural land has been changed or not.

MR. MOWAT: I'm listening.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. second member for Little Mountain is

listening, and I'm grateful. The member for darkest Surrey (Mr. Reid)

is listening too. I'm grateful too. It's not those two hon. members I

was trying to reach; but nevertheless, it's better to light one little

candle, as they say, than to curse the darkness. I'll attempt to

explain it further. If a regulation changing the criteria for removal

from the agricultural land reserve were made by the

Lieutenant-Governorin-Council, and there was a judgment made by the

registrar of

[ Page 859 ]

regulations that it shouldn't be published in a

timely and seasonable way, but a friend of a cabinet minister hears

about this regulation and makes the appropriate business decisions —

let's just leave it that way: "appropriate business decisions" —

without in fairness every other concerned party including the public —

God forbid that the public should hear about this — hearing in a timely

and seasonable way, one can see manifestly the dangers in this kind of

legislation. How unfair it would be. What an unfair advantage — in this

case, obviously, a financial and business advantage can be taken at the

expense of the democratic system and the way we have promulgated law

for centuries under the British parliamentary system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, but it's close. Is it insider information? Yes, if it involved this hypothetical "Masksun Company," as I've called it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is the member for Little Mountain my adjudicator this afternoon? Is he the designated adjudicator? Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the designated listener.

MR. LAUK: So the registrar of regulations, working in

cooperation with — or even separately from — the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, both and even separately comprise a

Star Chamber. The Star Chamber, as you know in our history, was where

laws were passed in secret, and judgments made upon subjects of the

realm in secret without public hearing. That's what the notorious Star

Chamber was. How do I apply that here? The reason that publication of

law became an essential part of its promulgation…. Promulgation means

it is not law until these steps have taken place: it's passed the

legislature, received royal assent and been published. Those are the

steps of how a law becomes a law. Don't mistake that once it receives

royal assent it's necessarily law. Don't mistake that even after

proclamation it's necessarily law. It's law when it's published. In

other words, the requirement of publication is a standard and ancient

requirement for the law becoming law. It is just as important, integral

and necessary a step as it is to receive second and third reading in

this chamber. And when that is done away with, we've done away with a

parliamentary right and a right of all citizens.

So you can see why the Attorney-General's rather soft and gentle and

somewhat offhandish and cavalier introduction of the bill is not

greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by members of the opposition

benches: the retroactivity, the lack of publication and the Star

Chamber nature of the judgments made by the registrar of regulations.

Let me give you another example; I know that it's not quite clear.

Let's take

section 22. It allows for repeal of sections in various

acts,

schedule 3. I'm using it to relate to the principle; I'm not

dealing with the

section as such. For example, in the Health Act,

section 12(2), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by "order" do

certain things. This expression is replaced by "regulation."

Section 22

allows for repealing of sections in various acts. For example, in the

Health Act,

section 13 is repealed, which allows for the publishing in

the Gazette and at least one

newspaper the regulations re management of health units, inspections,

treatment of disease, inspections of mining and lumber camps,

epidemics, prevention and suppression of disease. The Health Act calls

for prompt publication of these regulations in the Gazette

and one other publication. This bill repeals that section. Can you

imagine what this is? I heard this morning that someone in New Mexico

died of the bubonic plague. Let's not get into fearmongering, but I

want to bring to you the important aspect of this publication. Why does

the Health Act have an even more stringent requirement for publication

than other statutes?

The next question is, why is it being repealed? It is not being

repealed to tidy up our reference to whether it's a regulation, order

or directive. Why is it being repealed? I think it's inadvertent

negligence. Is there inadvertent negligence? I guess there is. It's

negligence on the part of the government to allow that to be repealed.

You've got all kinds of medical information in every day and age which

by law should be published. We shouldn't allow it to be the judgment of

the individual bureaucrat, or by ill-design, which is doubtful, but

more likely by negligence, not to publish in a timely and seasonable

way important health information for the public of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can you see the importance of what I'm getting at? It's not just a

housekeeping measure. What about information such as this: the

inspection of mining and lumber camps? I was legal counsel — it's now

over, and I am able to use the example in the House — at an inquest

involving a young fellow who was on an exploration team for a company

in the field. Now these teams are helicoptered into remote areas, they

do line-cutting, and the geologists go in and make judgments about

where to do prospecting and exploration. There's a whole crew of 12, 15

or 20 people sometimes. They're well equipped, and so on. The reason

mining sites and exploration sites are not under the Workers'

Compensation Board regulations is the remoteness and specialness of

these industrial centres and sites. One of the reasons this side of the

House has been arguing recently very strenuously to have it under the

Workers' Compensation Board regulations is that they're

under-inspected. In this case, the inquest jury found so. Through

lawful and admissible evidence taken on oath, they discovered that they

were not properly regulated or inspected for the purposes in question,

and that that may have contributed to the death of the young man who

was injured during an accident on exploration. It's a condemnation, of

course, of the department that is involved in such an inspection.

Rather than to decrease the publication and general knowledge of

those who should be concerned about safety at the minesite, mining

exploration camps and lumber camps, it should be increased. Rather than

eliminating the requirement that such regulations about inspections,

health and other things, should be published in a timely way, this bill

is eliminating it. What on earth does that have to do with the

committee's report on the uniform regulation? I've read it several

times, and unless I'm missing something…. The proposed Uniform

Regulations Act — what has it got to do with it? Nothing in the report

says anything about eliminating special publication needs.

[ Page 860 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is absolutely essential that the health and safety of our young

people at mining and lumber camps be protected. One of the reasons why

this young boy was killed was that he did not have adequate information

of the dangers of the site. The inquest jury found as a fact that

adequate steps were not taken to inform young employees of these

dangers. It was a glacier accident.

Here we have a statute coming along eliminating the requirement of

publishing that information in a timely and seasonable way, as we find

out new information, hazards, training requirements and health and

safety standards. That's the point that I'm trying to make. We cannot

pass this kind of statute, because under the guise of a Uniform

Regulations Act to solve a few problems…. They weren't serious; we all

could make a judgment about the difference between what was actually

legislative in nature — a law — and an order or directive that was more

in the administrative capacity of the cabinet. But to solve a little

problem they've created a huge one. In other words, they've thrown the

baby out with the bathwater.

[3:15]

This is the kind of sloppy…. If it's not sloppy draftsmanship, Mr.

Speaker, then what is it? It couldn't be malicious. Do these people

really want to lower the standards at mining camps? Do they want to

prevent information about health standards getting out to the public? I

can't believe the government would want to do that. What political or

other advantages would there be? It's just got to be sloppy

draftsmanship. Did anyone in the Social Credit caucus read it? What

about the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ? He's got mining exploration

sites and lumber camps. I'm sure he just skipped over this

section

without considering it, because he, above a lot of people I know, is

very concerned about safety at the worksite. But why should it be the

responsibility of the Social Credit caucus? With 26 or 31 bills they

haven't got time to read it

section by section, and consider its legal

ramifications. But the cabinet have the solemn and sworn duty to catch

these problems in draftsmanship.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but

section 8 says "after publication of the

notice," and that's just the publication of the notice. It "does not

apply to the regulation…exempted from publication." It's difficult to

understand this legislation unless you read the three sections together.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still difficult. I'm sure they're trying to hide something.

MR. LAUK: What could it be? This is what bothers me. I can't

understand. They can't be wanting to hide information from the public

on important health issues and other issues.

The Health Act had a requirement that within so many days safety and health standards be published in the Gazette ,

so all those actually working in the field, in the industry and in the

trade unions, could take them and publish them for their members and

interested groups; but also published in a newspaper so that the public

— parents — could read about it and tell their young people who might

be in the workplace.

In another recent case a 17-year-old, working on the minimum wage,

painting in the Burnaby area, used one of those now metal ladders in a

dangerous circumstance. It may be before the courts soon, so I cannot

say whether it's a breach of the WCB regulations or not, but it sure

seems funny to me that a total novice — a green, untrained worker — was

left on his own to move a metal ladder around high-tension wires to do

some painting. It may be that that contractor was not aware of the

regulations; if so, I'm sure that it's his fault. You have to be made

aware of them. But that's an example of what can happen in the future.

That contractor can come into court and say: "How was I to know? It

wasn't published. I didn't know that untrained workers couldn't be left

unattended carrying metal ladders around high-tension wires. I didn't

know that was in the regulations." It seems to us to be common sense,

doesn't it? But he could still argue that in court. And do you know

what the courts can do with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what lawyers are for.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but I'll tell you something else lawyers are

for. They're to stop this kind of nonsense from getting into

legislation; that's what they're for.

MR. REID: If we stopped all legislation, lawyers wouldn't have a job. You'd be out of work.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Member, I'm just not amused, and I

don't think if you were listening to me you'd be amused either. Because

the important aspect of these regulations is that they be known. Now

what kind of idiocy is the government perpetrating?

AN HON. MEMBER: They think it's a joke.

MR. LAUK: It's no joke. These health and safety standards

have to be known. Let's not give any negligent employer or owner or

anybody else the opportunity of escaping legal responsibility by

saying: "I didn't know."

Section 7 does not impress me at all. That's the offence section:

you can't be convicted of an offence if you didn't know or didn't see

it. That doesn't save the issue. That protects people from being

prosecuted personally for something they may have neglected to do. But

should they be?

The important thing to be realized here is that we would agree to a

uniform Regulations Act if it would solve the problem of trying to

determine what was a regulation — in other words, a law — and what was

just an order or directive, as you'd make in the ordinary

administrative responsibility of your office. The cabinet can do that.

Those judgments being made by bureaucrats were…. Some were in this

pile, some were in that pile, and you could flip a coin.

To solve that problem, a committee met for…. This is only the second

committee in 60 years on the subject of regulations in Canada. The

first one was in 1943. So you'd think that, after due deliberation,

their report would be taken seriously by the government. They said:

"Don't make anything retroactive that isn't expressly stated in the

statute." Usually that only applies to taxation. Now they're making

everything retroactive. They said publication can be exempted only

under special circumstances, and there may be, by statute, a special

need for publication. It certainly seems, and you would agree with me,

Mr. Speaker, that special need for publication is in the area of health

and safety, because if the courts are, as they call it in Latin, in

loco parentis, certainly the Legislature and the government are in loco

[ Page 861 ]

parentis. They have a responsibility for those of

our citizens who may not be experienced enough to deal with health and

safety matters. That's why we have these regulations and standards

passed into law by regulation and published.

Now I suppose the attorney will stand in

summary on this debate and

say: "Well, don't worry about it. The registrar of regulations will

make the right judgment. After all, the minister has to review it

through his lawyer under this amendment, and the lawyer will point it

out to me." Well, how are we going to trust that kind of situation? Why

do you think that the governments of the past put publication in the

Health Act in the first place? Because they wanted it there and did not

want to trust human nature, which might err.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this bill on its total

face because it doesn't address the principle stated. It addresses a

much more fundamental principle, and that is an offence against the

parliamentary system, which endangers the future of delegating

authority of this chamber. I therefore, in order to give the

Attorney-General an opportunity to consider my remarks in relation to

these amendments and to get outside legal advice before this statute is

passed through second reading, move the adjournment of the debate on

this bill until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have heard the question. All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed, if any.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ayes have it. The motion is approved.

The hon. House leader.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call adjourned debate on Bill 3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we'll have a division.

[3:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion to adjourn debate on second reading of Bill 31 approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading

of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I want to rise to extend my appreciation to

all of those members on the other side of the House who contributed to

the debate of Bill 9 in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before allowing the minister to

close debate, it is incumbent upon the Chair to advise members that the

minister would close debate. In so doing, hon. members, the Chair

notices members of the opposition standing, and the Chair recognizes

the member for Skeena on Bill 9.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is trying

to ascertain whether the member for Skeena has already spoken on this

debate, and from the records that I have available it would appear to

the Chair that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has already spoken.

MR. HOWARD: Would you check that to make sure, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena has already spoken. The

debate was adjourned by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). For the

information of members, very few members have not yet spoken. The

member for Skeena cannot be recognized.

MR. HOWARD: All right, that being the case, Mr. Speaker.….

This is the difficulty we get into when the government hasn't a clue

what it is doing and jumps from side to side on things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. members, the Chair

recognizes…. Unfortunately the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) has also spoken in debate. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) has already spoken in debate. The second member….

Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture and Food seeks the floor on a point of order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is customary in this chamber for only one member at a time to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have an opportunity to recognize a person who has not spoken before. The second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Have I been recognized? Nobody noticed I was

standing all the time. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that side of the

House will be sorry they didn't let the member for Skeena speak again.

If they are not sorry now, I am going to make them sorry.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I am just waiting for the dull roar to….

MR. SPEAKER: I believe other members are waiting for the member to begin his remarks.

MR. LAUK: Has it been pointed out that the Greater Vancouver

Regional District board is opposed to this legislation? Has that been

pointed out before? In case it hasn't….

Interjection.

[ Page 862 ]

MR. LAUK: It has? Well, I'll remind you of what they said.

They said it will remove all regional planning functions. They

emphasized to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that land use

designation is but one small aspect of regional planning, in which 95

percent of applications for amendment have received board support, and

that this should be a subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation,

and further, that the mainstream of planning activities concerning

municipalities is for necessary regional development services, a major

service which should not be eliminated as in the proposed bill. The

planning committee endorsed the proposal that the four lower mainland

regional district chairmen seek a meeting with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and explain the ramifications of the proposed Bill 9

for the area covered by their respective jurisdictions. By the way, has

the minister met with these four chairmen?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can tell me now.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don’t tell them? You've never been that juvenile before, Alex.

I wonder if the minister could indicate by a shake or nod of his

head whether he has met with the four lower mainland regional district

chairmen to discuss this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Name them.

MR. LAUK: Name them? Larry, Moe and Curly; I don't know.

You didn't meet with them, eh?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't know who you're talking about.

MR. LAUK: The four lower mainland regional districts.

I see the hon. House Leader is back.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, can you address the Chair and continue debate.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if it has also been mentioned that when

Bill N. Vander Zalm, no less, was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he had

this to say about the planning act….

HON. A. FRASER: He's picking flowers.

MR. LAUK: Oh, how soon they forget!

MR. BARNES: Who said that about his former colleague?

MR. LAUK: There's no love lost over there, is there? Boy,

that's some brotherhood and sisterhood over there, isn't it? "He's

picking flowers."

In a 1980 discussion paper, Bill Vander Zalm said:

"I'm pleased, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, to

present to you a discussion paper on the planning act for British

Columbia. I believe it is a positive legislative proposal. If adopted,

it will provide a single legislative framework for the planning and

regulation of land in the province. The act's aim is to create a more

efficient, fair and easily understood system of planning. It will

reduce the proliferation of provincial and local government land use

authorities with overlapping procedures. The act has been prepared by

my staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and has received

enthusiastic support."

You'll note that the necessity of planning was endorsed by the

former Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's been endorsed by Ministers

of Municipal Affairs since the 1960s.

A note in the August 4 edition of the Vancouver Sun

said: "Greater Vancouver Regional District Chairman Don Ross says

Premier Bill Bennett supports regional districts because they are a

necessary extension of local government." He talks about a little bit

of conflict between the two. It seems to me that you can't have it both

ways. We have everybody endorsing the idea of regional districts and

that kind of regional planning, yet this bill savages and guts the

power of the regional district to conduct such planning.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For a long time the Social Credit Party has argued very loudly,

especially during election time, about how much they believe in the

democratic system. But as soon as the election writ was returned and

the election was over, they forgot all about what they said during the

campaign about their commitment to the democratic system. Before May 5

we heard no hint whatsoever that there would be a legislative attack on

the power of the regional districts to plan on a regional basis. The

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) didn't say a word

about it in the election; neither did his colleague the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I didn't hear about any report

from any of the members elected or from those Social Credit candidates

who were not elected, and in particular from the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I didn't hear a breath; not a

whisper, not a hint. What kind of electoral process is it, if you get

elected on a mandate of being in favour of regional planning…? Silence

in this context means consent, because it was raised from time to time

as an issue during the election campaign. What do you call that kind of

a democratic system? What do you call that kind of a commitment on the

part of the Social Credit Party to democracy? It's machiavellian at its

worst, and they've taken the instruction from Machiavelli very well. It

is a cynical attitude towards the electorate of British Columbia.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) seems

amused. Does being the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations mean

that you are also in charge of the relations between municipal

governments and regional districts? Obviously not, because you as a

democrat would want to protect the democratic interest. It's a cynical

way of looking at it. You tell the people one thing during the

election, and another thing afterwards. This is another example of it.

I want to tell you the benefits over the years of the regional

district in which my constituency is situated. We were not always

enthusiastic about regional districts, but in 1971 the regional

district embarked upon a lengthy investigation of the liveability of an

urban area. Rapid growth was

[ Page 863 ]

taking place, high-density housing, and the

profiles in research were started in 1971. The first reports were not

introduced until 1972.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: How would you remember? You know, the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) likes pulling my leg; I

suppose it's because my leg can withstand an infinite amount of pulling.

[3:45]

HON. A. FRASER: I'm helping you with your speech.

MR. LAUK: He's saying that it didn't occur until 1972.

Everyone who knows the hon. minister knows that he can't remember

anything before May 5. May 5 was the watershed for him; nothing else

counts. Same for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. "Never mind what I

said before May 5; never mind what I promised before May 5. It's" — how

did Richard Nixon put it? — "inoperative. All of my promises, all of my

commitments are inoperative. Now that we've got the levers of power,

the rest of you can go whistle." We'll talk about Whistler in a moment.

HON. A. FRASER: What are you going to do about that waterfall in Stanley Park?

MR. LAUK: Build a bridge over it. This is the kind of attitude about liveability.

This is a good point the minister has raised. We have B.C. Place,

with the opportunity there to build and design and urban development

such as the world has not seen before. The government comes along and

purchases it for a fairly reasonable price, but they want to maximize

their profit on the B.C. Place site. The Greater Vancouver Regional

District….

MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 9.

MR. LAUK: Are you all right? Would you bring the lady member's medication, please.

MR. REID: She said: "Bill 9."

MR. LAUK: Oh, Bill 9. I thought she said: "I'm not fine," or something like that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you for caring.

MR. LAUK: Bill 9 has to do with regional planning. The point

I'm trying to make is that the liveability region plan of the GVRD,

which has been the focal point and guideline for private and public

interests planning in the Greater Vancouver Regional District is being

abandoned by B.C. Place. Why? Because they've restated the principles

upon which public development is to be based.

HON. A. FRASER: What's your position on B.C. Place?

MR. LAUK: I can't afford a position on B.C. Place; it's all

luxury positions on B.C. Place. I'll be surprised if they let me walk

along the waterfront there without a note from the minister.

MR. KEMPF: It's okay, Gary. They'll have you on a leash.

MR. LAUK: Now that was unkind. Would you bring him to order, Mr. Speaker?

The livable region plan was a good plan. It wasn't written in stone.

It simply stated that those of you who choose, or by necessity live in

an urban area, from the urban core the suburbs of the great metropolis

of Vancouver, are entitled to an environment that is affordable and

reasonable under all the circumstances. You're entitled to be protected

from the mistakes that were made in other major urban areas of North

America, mistakes that in the city of Vancouver and the greater

Vancouver district can still be avoided. You know what they were: the

mass freeway systems that divided and cut up other cities; the

high-density housing systems that quickly turned into the urban core

that deteriorated neighbourhoods. We've managed to keep the West End

fairly livable — apart from a few very obvious problems, as you know —

but we still have the opportunity to avoid some of the urban core

problems. As chairman of the Parks board, the second member for Little

Mountain knows what I'm talking about. He knows the struggles we have

to convince our own people who live in those regions, and to convince

developers, of the necessity of using these guidelines — to their own

benefit, eventually.

So what happened with the B.C. Place Corporation? First of all, this

Legislature, the government, gave them too much power, because they can

override. They have more powerful expropriation powers than B.C. Hydro,

and you know the fight we've had for years on B.C. Hydro. B.C. Place is

now designing commercial and housing development on that valuable core

land to maximize a profit, as if it was a private corporation. A

private corporation has to obey the local zoning laws of a

municipality, and B.C. Place doesn't have to.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, they haven't agreed to do it. They've agreed to do it only if the city council will approve their plan.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. When the government

feels that planning is good for other people, they'll support regional

planning. When the government feels that regional planning will

interfere with their own plans, they don't support regional planning.

That's the issue behind Bill 9. When it's B.C. Place, when it's the

ALRT system, when it's Spetifore land in Delta, when it's the ALR, when

it's housing in places where it shouldn't be or industry in places

where it shouldn't be, they don't want any interference from the

regional boards, which are all made up of elected members. It's not as

if…. I've heard some members say they weren't elected. They were all

elected by municipal councils and, working together in a cooperative

fashion, they were trying to introduce and make a reality some of the

things mentioned in the livable region plan in the greater Vancouver

district.

Cooperation is the key. With this savage legislation, and with other

bills that are coming down, British Columbians all over this province

are asking themselves: "When is this bashing of extremes going to stop?

Why has the government moved so far to the right?" In this province we

need the politics of conciliation, the politics of compromise, which

[ Page 864 ]

means the politics of cooperation. What could be

more cooperative than elected municipal officials sitting together at a

regional board, planning their whole region as a whole, so there won't

be duplication, there wouldn't be overlapping, or unnecessary

competition for industry or other lucrative taxbase developments. There

would be cooperation and understanding between these municipalities, on

behalf of the citizens in those municipalities. And when a few greedy

developers who gain access to the corridors of power in Victoria want

to override the local planning, they'll come here with a statute and

eliminate years of planning and the hopes and dreams of responsible

elected officials, and of the people they represent over decades in the

regional district.

It's a shame that this kind of crass greed, this kind of

selfishness, affects public policy in British Columbia even today. Even

in the worst jurisdictions of the United States and Europe, where local

planning has been corrupted in some fashion or another, you can't find

a similar example of somebody who selfishly and petulantly wants to

make their millions off land or development, rushing to the government

and their friends to push it through, overriding local planning.

British Columbia Place could be the attraction of the whole world.

Here we have the city of Vancouver on a peninsula, surrounded by

beautiful suburbs and housing developments. Within the core of the city

we have the opportunity to build mixed housing, low density and some

high, and some commercial and office rental, but within the livable

region program designed by the GVRD.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Not to maximize profit? It's a publicly owned site.

If you used as a guideline to maximize profit, is it economical to

leave Stanley Park with trees on it? Let's put high-density commercial

highrises on Stanley Park. Let's put highrise parking lots.

MR. MOWAT: We don't own Stanley Park.

MR. LAUK: Can you believe the chairman of the parks board saying we don't own Stanley Park?

MR. MOWAT: I didn't say that.

MR. LAUK: You said that if we owned Stanley Park we'd do it. That's the implication of what you were saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: If he's rising under standing order 42, he must wait to do so until after my speech, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct, hon. member, but we haven't heard his point of order yet.

MR. MOWAT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of

the parks board is now addressing it with the board. We have not said

that about the parks board.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member. The

second member for Vancouver Centre anticipated that, I'm sure, The hon.

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain will be given every

opportunity to participate in this debate.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the hon. member to stop bullying me during my speech.

This is the kind of thing they would do to Stanley Park, using the

same economic criteria. It's publicly owned; put up highrises. What

kind of a city would we have if we used those criteria? But those are

the criteria B.C. Place is using now. I say it's a mistake. It's not

good for the cultural, economic or political life of the city of

Vancouver. It's not good for our health and safety. It's not good for

anyone — except to maximize a profit for the B.C. Place corporation so

that Paul Manning, or whoever it is, can grow another inch in girth,

smoke another Havana and say: "Look what I did." It's a sad and cheap

day for the poor people of the city of Vancouver. We had hopes and

dreams to develop a city that could avoid some of the more horrendous

mistakes of other urban areas, and part of the way in which to do that

is cooperative planning with the GVRD.

Another example of regional planning, Mr. Speaker, is transit. I would like

to catalogue for you the scandalous and seedy way in which the government of

the day usurped the function of transit planning from the regional district.

They brought in a bill saying: "All of the transit will be planned by the

regional district because we think that's a cooperative way to do it."

Bill Vander Zalm said so. We said: "That's not a bad idea. However

in the same bill you're saying that most of the costs will be paid out of

the local regions, through local Hydro rates, taxation, levies and other ways

of gathering funds." Then a few months later Vander Zalm came traipsing

into the House and said: "I'm sick and tired of the delays of the GVRD

in planning mass transit." I rushed out of the House and phoned up the

committee I knew was working on transit for the regional district and I said:

'Are you guys dragging your feet?" "No, we just presented the

minister with the report." That's why he rushed into the House: he

wanted his own little system of transit. He was presented with the report at

the very time he brought in legislation to take back the planning function.

But guess what he left with the regional district. "You raise the taxes."

He left the taxes to the regional district.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is now reflecting on a previous vote, which is unparliamentary. We are on Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are quite

right observing that the member is reflecting on a previous vote, but

it was not of this parliament; it was of another parliament and is

perfectly in order. The member can refer to a vote in a previous

parliament, or any other legislative parliament. I want to tell that

member that he has a perfect right to refer to that vote — through you,

Mr. Speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want

to say that that member is completely out of order. Not only did he

refer to a previous vote, but also he referred to a previous member of

this House who is no long here, and that's not correct.

[ Page 865 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we can be relevant to Bill 9 and avoid other, ancillary discussion, I'm sure we can avoid the problems we've been having.

MR. LAUK: Can I refer to a very ancient and previous member of this House, Alex Fraser? Is that permissible?

MR. BARRETT: No, he's still here.

MR. LAUK: Is that him? I didn't even know he was sick. He's upset these days. He hasn't had much attention.

Mr. Speaker, the important point I want to draw out of Bill 9 is

that in example after example this government wants regional planning

when it suits their purpose but not when it doesn't suit their purpose.

In other words, on the one hand, when regional planning is good for

private companies — except when they're the friends of the government,

such as Spetifore…. On the other hand, regional planning is good for

the private enterprise world, but it's not good for the B.C. Place

corporation. This is the point that I'm trying to draw out of it.

[4:00]

The example of transit is highly apropos this legislation. On the

one hand, the government gives the planning authority and the taxation

power to the regional district. Under the guise of giving them planning

they make them tax the folks in the local region. But a few months

later, and rather precipitously, because the minister saw that the

regional district was bringing in a timely, conventional transit system

that would have cost much less than the current system that's now in

place….

MR. REID: That's a laugh. Their system was going to cost a lot more.

MR. LAUK: That's not true. Captain Chaos over there is

disagreeing with me. You remember Captain Chaos. He said that during a

demonstration in Vancouver there would be chaos in the streets and

blood flowing in the gutters. We didn't hear a word from him when he

was chairman of transit until the time he became MLA in the House. Now

all of a sudden Captain Chaos appears. We're going to get him a little

cape.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could return to the bill. I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey not to interrupt.

MR. LAUK: If Captain Chaos had read the reports that I have

read, he would not say the things he's saying about the costs of

transit. Even before they started the ALRT system it was clear that a

conventional system would cost about $200 million to $300 million less

if you were going to extend the line out to New Westminster. That is

the information the regional district has, and if you disagree with it

you disagree with them.

MR. REID: I disagree with the regional district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I appreciate the hon. member for Surrey's

assistance in my speech. I think that he hasn't spoken in this House

since he was sworn in.

MR. REID: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: Have you spoken? How many times?

MR. REID: Four or five times.

MR. LAUK: Come on now! Where — out in the corridor?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we can proceed with the debate.

MR. LAUK: Would you inform the hon. member that the speeches

in the legislative dining room do not count in the House? The only

speech I heard was that there would be chaos in the streets.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Surrey please come to order. The second member for Vancouver Centre will speak to the bill.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Speak to the bill.

MR. LAUK: The first member for Surrey is rushing to the protection of her little chickadee over here.

Let's get to the bill. The bill, in my view, is a savage way to deal

with regional planning, which has developed over many decades — with

some problems, yes, but mostly with the cooperation and good will of

elected municipal politicians, who by and large and over the long haul,

have represented the interests of their community. They've had to give

and they've had to take. That's what the people of British Columbia are

now demanding of us.

That's why this legislation is so divisive and poisonous in the

community at large. It's driving neighbour against neighbour. It's

driving British Columbians against British Columbians in a way so deep

and so savage that we've not seen that in our political life in the

whole history of British Columbia. I think they have to be held fully

responsible for that kind of devastation of the cooperative social

fabric that we have been able to enjoy, by and large, over many years.

One of the examples of that cooperation at the political level was the

local planning mechanism offered by municipalities through the GVRD and

through other regional districts. That cooperation is what is required

today. The GVRD and other regional districts provided the politics of

conciliation, compromise and cooperation.

Because the government which says it's the senior government in the

province…. You know, wiser men than I have said that the judgment of a

man with power is how often he does not use it, not how often he does.

In other words, that person's wisdom is measured by how often he does

not use his power, not by how often he does. These 31 statutes, savage

statutes, wrenching power from the people, destroying rights,

destroying opportunities and destroying the hopes and dreams of many

citizens of this province, are the kind of legislation that is

unforgivable. If they withdrew it tomorrow, that taste, that darkness

in the history of this province, would never be forgotten.

It is back-of-the-hand treatment of people, British Columbians,

honest, law-abiding people dedicated to their communities, who have

stood for municipal office for years. The

[ Page 866 ]

hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) stood for municipal office for years in the Cariboo, and he

used his years of political service at the local level to gain entrance

to this House, and they trusted him. He's joined with this bunch of

people who have savaged the rights and powers of regional and local

governments. I know his memory is going, but has he forgotten the years

of municipal service?

You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have served years in local

government. You know how humiliating and frustrating it is for local

politicians to get the back-of-the-hand treatment from senior

government, from people in the distant capital, either in Victoria or

thousands of miles away in Ottawa who don't understand what's going on

in your community. You know how frustrating it is when you can't get a

message to them about what you're trying to represent in your own

community. One way you're able to get across some of the message is

through the regional districts. Because of the petulance and greed of a

few, the people on the government side sweep away the whole works. It's

a dictatorial thing to do — a usurpation of traditional power.

Democracy didn't grow out of some sort of universal law; in the

British parliamentary system it grew over 800 or 900 years of struggle.

In Britain many locally elected people and parliamentarians lost their

lives; the monarch and the aristocracy would cut their heads off at a

moment's notice. Hundreds of years ago in Westminster there was a time

when you'd have to have courage just to go and sit in the House to

which you were elected. The Speaker used to have to sneak in and out of

Westminster, for fear that His Majesty's soldiers would capture him and

lock him up in the Tower. Those historical facts should be burned into

the memory of all the citizens of British Columbia. I'm not saying that

we're going to lose all our democratic rights tomorrow, but after

looking at these 31 bills I'm not about to give any guarantees to my

constituents about what's going to happen next.

B.C. Place is a great opportunity. If you look at the south side of

False Creek you can see what a tasteful, sensitive, progressive

development is: housing for people of all walks of life, parks, open

areas, schools and playgrounds. The south side of False Creek is a

celebration of the family. Have you ever been there? Have you seen it?

Granville Island serves that area, with its beautiful marketplace,

theatres, shops, hotels and service areas. Contrast that with the

proposal for B.C. Place: concrete walls, sterile cement; it closes down

at 5 o'clock; empty streets; you can't hear children laughing; you

can't hear people living; just smoke and exhaust; glass and concrete

walls blocking off the view from the south side of False Creek. It's

just a monument to greed; that's all it is. You can get any number of

economics professors — if you pay them enough they'll tell you anything

you like about what should be economic for the site. If you do the

hiring, you call the tune; you set the criteria for the premises.

The need for regional planning is clear to everyone who has any common sense at all.

MR. REID: Not to elected officials.

MR. LAUK: Well, we're elected officials. The people on the regional district….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: One of the problems of having a party that tells

one thing to the people before the election and another afterwards is

that we're left in the opposition and you're in the government. If

you'd told the people the truth, we'd be the government and you'd be in

the opposition. You didn't tell the people the truth, or you wouldn't

have been elected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Was that remark any reflection on the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)?

MR. LAUK: I was referring to the Social Credit Party. If they'd told the people the truth….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 9. I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey not to interrupt.

MR. LAUK: If they'd told the people the truth prior to May 5,

the NDP would have formed the government; there's no question about

that. A recent poll indicated that that's what would have happened.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: You know, it's a little bit of bravado for the

second member for Surrey to say now: "Ho, ho, we've got the power. Put

it to a vote."

I've always noticed in opposition that we win every debate, but we

lose every vote. But I'll tell you something: before the next election

the NDP will continue to tell the people the truth. We don't want to be

elected under false pretences. If we form a government in this

province, the people will know our policies and our platforms. We won't

fool them before May 5.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill. The hon. member has three minutes.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Bill 9 is another example of a savage

attack on local government. By being a savage attack on local

government, it's a savage attack on local electors. We must assume —

because if we're committed to the democratic system, that's a key

assumption — that the local electors have seriously considered who they

want to represent them at the municipal and regional levels….

MR. REID: Municipal level, yes.

MR. LAUK: And the regional level.

MR. REID: They don't elect regional level.

MR. LAUK: Yes, they do. That shows you how much that second member for Surrey knows. The ignorance is just incredible.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to restate our

commitment to local government. I would like to propose that the motion

on second reading of this bill be amended by leaving out the word "now"

and adding the words "on this day six months hence." The reason that I

propose this motion is…

MRS. JOHNSTON: To stall.

[ Page

867 ]

MR. LAUK: It is not to stall. I'm asking in all sincerity that this

government reconsider Bill 9 and restate this Legislature's confidence and

faith in regional planning and in locally elected governments.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have asked people to go to my office and

bring my notes. I have made extensive notes and done extensive research

regarding Bill 6. However, the way the government conducts business in

this House is abysmal. No wonder this province is in the shape it is

today, the way the government conducts its business in this Legislature

of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I got my notes and my extensive research. Thank you very much. That should keep me going.

Centralizing authority is what it's all about. I have not finished talking

about the way this government conducts business in this province, Mr. Speaker;

I really want to discuss that for a minute. This is the third bill that has

been called before this Legislature without notification to the Whips or to

the party.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important.

How can we be expected to conduct business in this province properly,

the way the government conducts its business over there.

Back to the bill. I want to talk about my own school districts. First of all, a comment over the….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much. I am getting a lot of help. More help is on the way.

I want to make a few overall comments regarding this bill before I

discuss the situation as it pertains to my local school districts:

School Districts 46, 47 and 49, and parts of two others in my riding.

This bill is a bill that effectively takes autonomy away from all

school districts in the province of British Columbia. Basically….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Transportation (Hon. A.

Fraser) asks me what section. I suggest to him that he look at sections

1, 2 and 3 and the title, and that will, I'm sure…. In fact, just for

your benefit, Mr. Minister, the explanatory notes on this bill say that

section 1 gives the minister powers to supervise budgets and

expenditures by school districts.

The member for Vancouver Centre said just a few minutes ago, "He who

controls the purse-strings calls the tune," and that's exactly what

happens here. This bill effectively takes away the autonomy from all

locally elected school board members. I might tell you at this point

that we met with BCSTA members approximately two weeks ago here in

Victoria. Many of them were here to meet with government members

regarding this proposed legislation. They expressed their concerns over

this bill and Bill 3 and the effect those two bills would have on the

education system of the province. What we're talking about here is the

quality of education for our young people throughout British Columbia.

This bill will effectively take away the autonomy of local school

districts.

When we met with them here some two to three weeks ago, some of

these school board members expressed their concern over this

legislation — naturally on a section-by-section basis. I'm sure that

every member of this House has received correspondence from their

respective school boards and the areas they represent objecting to this

legislation.

You may not believe this, Mr. Speaker, but I've actually had members

of my own school district inform me that they may not be seeking office

again as school board members. they are respected members of the

community attempting to do their jobs for the education of our people

here in British Columbia, and they may not run again because this bill

will effectively take away the rights and autonomy of school board

members. It affects teachers, but most important of all it affects the

quality of education in this province.

This bill expands the power of the Minister of Education to issue

directives to school boards establishing the amount they may spend on

any

section of their budgets. Up to now the minister has only been able

to issue directives relating to the special education portion of that

budget. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister will set the

final budget for every school district in the province. School boards,

as I

[ Page 868 ]

understand it, may still submit budgets to the

ministry, but those budgets don't necessarily have to be accepted by

the Ministry of Education. In an area where funds for school purposes

are raised locally…. I might tell you that in School District 47, 99.9

percent of the funds raised for education purposes are raised locally,

believe it or not. This is in spite of the government's contention that

they provide, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood — I'm going from

memory here — of 34 percent of total budgets over the province.

In this bill, Mr. Speaker, the minister is also given new powers to

order a school board not to overspend a portion of its budget upon pain

of having its provincial grant reduced. In other words, if the school

board decides that the budget that has been allowed to it by the

Ministry of Education is not enough to meet the special needs of some

students, and decide, "To heck with the provincial government; quality

and children in our school district come ahead of what the deputy

minister or the Minister of Education may say," and decide to spend a

portion of their budget for a special needs program, and the minister

finds out about it, which he must because statements must be forwarded

from time to time to the Ministry of Education, they can penalize that

school district and that school board by reducing the provincial

portion of their budget. Do you think an individual school board member

or a teacher is going to feel good about that? No. Once again, it's the

children who will feel the final effect of this kind of legislation —

in other words, the quality of education.

[4:30]

In my view, over the past year there has been contentious

legislation proposed with regulations and restrictions placed on school

boards. Isn't it strange that prior to the last provincial election the

government changed its approach and attitude in terms of school boards

and school districts and teachers? They said: "We've found an extra X

million dollars." I don't have the figures in front of me; I believe it

was an extra $46 million they magically found prior to calling the last

provincial election. They said: "Don't worry about a thing, school

board members and teachers. We've found this extra $46 million to

distribute to every school district in the province, and don't worry

about a thing." So what happens? I think the taxpayers, teachers and

school board members, all of whom I found to be reasonably responsible

throughout all of this…. Probably a lot of them voted for the Social

Credit Party, based on the extra funds that the government over there

said they were going to distribute to the school boards.

Did they talk about bringing in Bill 6 during the election campaign,

Mr. Speaker, and taking away the authority of elected representatives

at the local level? They did not. We had no idea until the day the

budget was brought down that this bill would be brought in as well, nor

did any school board member in the province, as far as I know.

Furthermore, we are not aware of a single school board member in this

province that asked for this legislation. I'm not aware of that. I

shouldn't say "we." There may be people who asked for this type of

legislation sitting on school boards — I honestly don't know. Certainly

I am not aware of a single school board member whom I have met with in

my riding who asked for or expected this type of repressive

legislation. In my view the government could have been honest with the

people of this province before going into this election; they should

have told the people of this province exactly what they intended to do,

but they didn't.

Another thing this bill does…. It says here: "The directives issued

by the minister remain secret. He is not obliged to make them public. We have

no idea how these powers have been used since assent on April 30, 1982. Bill

6 affords an opportunity to demand an accounting from the minister before allowing

passage of another centralization measure." I don't know….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Have you got the wrong one?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, this is very pertinent. You should know.

You're an ex-school teacher and a principal, I believe, Mr. Minister.

Now you've been promoted to higher things, but as a former principal

and school teacher, and as a person who dealt with school

superintendents, school boards, teachers and presumably students from

time to time…. You probably strapped a few before the strap was

illegal. Did you go around this province as a minister of the Crown and

when running for re-election on May 5, 1983, telling the people of this

province and the school boards and the school teachers that you were

going to bring in this legislation? You didn't. Own up that you didn't

tell people you were going to bring in this bill. 'You have no mandate

to bring in this kind of repressive legislation over the heads of

locally elected government. Had you run an honest election campaign,

you wouldn't be sitting over there today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a mandate for restraint.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why don't you show a bit over there, Mr. Member, whoever you are and wherever you are.

It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the new members really don't

understand what is happening in British Columbia at the present time.

With this kind of legislation we have before us…. Did that party run on

a ticket of taking away local autonomy from regional boards,

municipalities and school districts? Did they honestly come out and say

they would do that? They did not in their election campaign, nor in the

multimillion-dollar ads that they had on television which were paid for

by taxpayers' money. Did you see one ad on television, Mr. Speaker,

saying that they were going to bring in Bill 6, this repressive

legislation that essentially takes away autonomy from locally elected

representatives and teachers and local taxpayers? Effectively, what

this bill does….

We have a number of bills like this before the House at the present

time which were introduced in this House in the name of restraint.

I believe a lot of people in British Columbia voted for restraint.

They voted for that party because they said there would be restraint

which would be carried out by attrition. There would be certain

cutbacks. Fair enough. That's fair ball, and there's nothing wrong with

that. We had a program which 55 percent of the people of the province

didn't accept; 45 percent of the people did accept our program. That's

the democratic system. But one of the things we don't have in a

democratic system…. You were telling a lot of things to the electorate

that weren't necessarily true, or you were misrepresenting items to the

public, leading up to and during the election campaign. Then you come

into this House and tell us that you have a mandate to bring in bills

like Bill 6, bills that totally centralize in Victoria and allow the

deputy minister to do whatever he wishes to do; in fact, it gives the

Deputy Minister of Education the power of government.

[ Page 869 ]

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I was elected by my constituents over the

last 11 years and over the last four elections to come into this House

and vote for bills like this. If there is one function that I'm going

to carry out and work hard for, the hardest I've ever worked in this

House and this province, it's to stop repressive measures like Bill 6,

and the other repressive measures that we have before us. I am deadly

serious; what I am saying is not political rhetoric. One purpose and

one cause that I feel I was elected for, and that I ran for office for,

is to stop this kind of repressive legislation, of which Bill 6 is a

perfect example.

I hear some chirping from the back benches over there, but those new

members are so buoyed up by their victories in the last election that

they haven't even read these bills. I am sure they don't read these

reports from the BCSTA and the BCTF I'm sure they don't talk to their

local school board members and have no idea about the process of local

autonomy and locally elected members. Talking about locally elected

members, Mr. Speaker, I feel that people at the local level have the

knowledge and the skills. First of all, they run for public office.

Many people who have the ability and should be seeking public office do

not, for a variety of reasons. In fact, this bill's a good reason why

they don't. Whether they be a regional board, municipality or a school

board, I believe that once these….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to support this bill?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you kidding? No way! I have never

supported repressive legislation in my life, Mr. Speaker, certainly not

in my 11 years in this House, and I don't intend to support Bill 6 or

Bill 9.

Just to give you one example…. I have a number of examples here and

I'll get to them presently. I have a copy of a telegram sent to Premier

W.R. Bennett, August 9, 1983, 9:30 a.m., from Marion L. Williams,

chairman, School District 47, just a few days ago. Copies of this, by

the way, went to myself, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and Hon.

J. Heinrich, Minister of Education, who is sitting right over there

sleeping. The telegram says: "The Board of School Trustees, District

47, Powell River, urges you to table Bill 6, Education (Interim)

Finance Amendment Act, 1983, until further study can determine its

effect on local autonomy. See letter of August 2, 1983, to Minister of

Education from this board regarding Bill 6."

I happen to have a copy of that letter dated August 2, 1983, and I

wonder if the minister remembers it. I may read a bit of it to him to

jog his memory, and then I'm going to ask him if he has bothered to

reply to that correspondence. This letter, from the Board of School

Trustees, School District 47, dated August 2, 1983, was written and

sent after school board members and their representatives had met with

the minister here in Victoria a couple of weeks ago to express their

opposition to this legislation, and of course to Bill 3. You might be

interested to know…. Well, I'll get into that later. I'll read this

letter to this minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. I want to jog his

memory, and I'd like to know from the minister if he bothered to

respond to this two-page letter. I doubt it. Probably some EA sent a

letter saying: "We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of August

2."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you remember that piece of correspondence? Just nod your head if you remember.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. There have been a couple of unparliamentary personal references to the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Which one? I'm sorry. If I made an unparliamentary remark I withdraw. It was certainly unintentional.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They were personal references. There was one made earlier that the Chair overlooked. Could we just speak to the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I am

trying to get the minister to nod his head. I'm just asking the

minister, through you, if he responded to this correspondence, and if

he remembers it; that's all.

He's awake now. I'll read it into the record, just on the off chance that he may remember.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The suspense is killing me. Get on with it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm quoting now from this letter of August 2, 1983, from the Board of School Trustees, School District 47, Powell River:

"Dear Mr. Heinrich:

"My prime objective and duty as a school trustee is to

provide, within our means, the best possible education for all young

people in our community. I must respond to local people's expressed

opinions of what kind of schooling they want and of how much they are

willing or able to pay for that schooling."

That's a reasonable statement for any school board member to make.

They have a responsibility not only for the quality of education but to

the taxpayers and to the province. This letter is from the chairman of

the school board.

"In ten years as a trustee I think I have maintained

this fine balance to the satisfaction of this community. At the outset,

let me assure you that I understand the downturn in the economy and

other priorities make it difficult for the provincial government to

provide its proper share of revenue to education."

That's interesting in itself, because I think at one point the

province paid as much from general revenues as 47 or 48 percent of the

total cost of education in this province. I'm going from memory, and

that may be wrong. In any event, I know that as of the last fiscal year

the provincial share of the total cost of education in this province

was down to 34.3 percent.

"I agree that the present funding formula and the method of assessing property taxes need revamping."

We've discussed revamping the formula on property taxes for

education purposes for many years in this House. We're all familiar

with that argument, but I suspect we're going to go through it again

many times during this debate.

" I know many of the provisions of the School Act are outdated."

That's true as well — we all agree with that.

"Trustees, individually and through their association, have long requested changes in legislation that

[ Page 870 ]

will enable boards to finance and govern the public school system

more efficiently. Changes are needed, but I would be remiss in my duty to local

electors if I did not express my grave concern that the new funding system —

the financial management systems — and Bill 6 are going to bring undesirable

changes to how our public school system will operate, to who controls every

aspect of the system. I see no thought given to improving the quality of education,

no mention of meeting the challenge of the rapid changes occurring in our society.

I do see a danger of disfranchising local electors and an end to local decision-making."

That's true; that's exactly what we're talking about here in Bill 6:

disfranchising local electors and the decision-making process being

centralized down here in Victoria under one government and one minister

or his deputy. What's the point of having a school board anyway? What's

the point of holding elections for school board members this November?

Decisions are going to be made here in Victoria — it's as simple as

that.

I'll continue reading from this correspondence, of which I'm sure

the minister is very much aware, and I'm sure he has answered the board

member of School District 47 in great detail.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That member over there says: 'Answer the

question." We've had question period in this House every day since you

guys came to government. Why don't you answer some questions over there

for once? Answer some questions during question period. We have

question period but no answer period, with you guys over there.

To continue, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 6, I quote from this correspondence:

"It is a puzzling course of action for an elected

official at the provincial level to belittle the same voters judgment

at the local level."

That's a good point. Maybe it will answer the

question of the member over there. The government is taking a great

deal of power unto itself, and yet it belittles the judgment of the

voters and the trustees at the local level. That's precisely what is

happening under Bill 6 and Bill 3.

The chairman of the school board goes on to say:

"I think the restraint you desire can be managed in

the short run with no lasting detrimental effect, but only by giving

local boards greater, not less, flexibility to manage."

Well, that's pretty obvious. It's exactly what we're talking about — greater, not less, flexibility to manage.

"In the long run, adequate funding at the provincial level

for public schools, colleges and universities must be forthcoming, or the young

people of B.C. will become educationally disadvantaged.…."

We're

talking about someone who has been a school board chairman and a member of the

school board for many years, who has for many years been deeply and keenly interested

in education. "Second-class citizens in their own country." Under

this bill, that is what is eventually going to become of our young people who

are today in the education system. She goes on on page 2 of this correspondence:

"Ministry officials have assured us that some of the

glaring deficiencies of the funding formula will be adjusted and that

there is no intention of restricting spending to functions within the

formula, except function 4. If that is your intention" — Mr. Minister —

it "is indeed welcome news, and I am sure boards would appreciate

confirmation of that."

That's a good point. I see the minister is busy at

the moment, but sometime I would like an answer from the minister on

this point. I would like to know if the minister has in fact expressed

his intention about what he says he's going to allow certain school

boards to do under this legislation. Frankly, I doubt that he will. But

I would like to hear from the minister when he closes debate on this

bill at some future time, if he is going to keep his word on that

particular item.

I'm quoting again from the correspondence: "However, if Bill 6

becomes law, the threat that some future minister or government will

use the power therein to emasculate local control is ever present."

This school board chairman has accepted the minister's word, but we

don't know what will happen down the tube. Maybe some people can accept

the minister and take him at his word. He's usually a pretty nice guy.

He generally keeps his word, I presume. In spite of the fact that this

bill takes away local autonomy from school boards and jeopardizes the

quality of education, the minister says not to worry: "Trust me. Take

me at my word." I could trust that minister, but I don't trust that

whole government, if what goes on in cabinet…. Who knows? I don't think

we should take that chance. I think that minister should spell out

precisely what he intends to do with this bill. Based on the past

record of that government, I think we know very well what the minister

will do.

Mrs. Williams, chairman of School District 47, goes on to say:

"Traditionally, in North America control of the education of children

has rested ultimately with parents through elected trustees." That's

right; that's why we have school boards today. Many years ago — 200,

300, 400 years ago — when communities were being built in North

America, local farming groups, whatever, decided that they wanted an

education for their children. How were they going to bring that about?

They had no real local tax system or tax-gathering agencies. In fact,

300 or 400 years ago you didn't even have taxes of that kind. So they

banded together and said that every family would put X number of

dollars or pesos or whatever into a central fund. "Let's get together

on a weekend. We'll put up a school. We'll work during the week. We'll

build a school" — usually by volunteer labour — "and we'll hire a

teacher, someone to teach the children how to at least read and write

and add a little bit." So that's how school boards and school districts

got started. They have expanded greatly and their responsibilities have

increased. The scope of education has broadened. We now have people

carrying on to high school, to university and beyond.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure, the taxpayers accept responsibility for

the quality of education in this province. But what we're talking about

here is that this bill is far more than a restraint bill. If that

member for North Surrey or South Surrey or somewhere would only read

the bill and the School Act and talk to local school board members, he

might understand a little bit. This bill goes far beyond a restraint

measure. What this bill does is take away the autonomy of local school

boards, of locally elected representatives, and the trust placed in

these people by the electorate of a local school

[ Page

871 ]

district and a local community. That's why I'm going to be voting against this bill at some point.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. Well, that member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) is back in the House. You can hear his yacking

across the floor, I'm sure. He chirps and chirps away. He hasn't done

anything constructive for this province since he was elected to

government some years ago too many years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, name one constructive thing he's done

for this province. Just give me one thing that that minister has done

that's constructive and in the best interests of this province. Just

give me one instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Reflection on another member's or a minister's character….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am discussing his ability as a minister. It has nothing to do with his character.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am discussing his ability as a minister, Mr.

Speaker. And his ability is absolutely zilch, zero, in this province.

All he has accomplished is to continue to borrow money to plunge this

province into debt. I have a right to defend myself from that bully of

a minister sitting over there. That bully!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Reflecting on another member's

character is unparliamentary, and I'll ask the minister and all other

members not to interject. Would the member for Mackenzie please

withdraw the word "bully." I find it offensive in this context.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You do? Well I'll be go to heck! I'll withdraw it if you find it offensive, but it's true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, he….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let's not have any debate. We'll just carry on on Bill 6, thank you.

[5:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it very much if you could protect me from that….

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is founded

on standing order 20 which says: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order

members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the

House during the remainder of the day, I want to point out to Your Honour that

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is persistently interrupting

and engaging in disorderly conduct. Not only this afternoon but day after day

the Chair has found occasion to admonish the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. He pays no attention whatever to the Chair's requirement

that the minister pay attention to the rules. I think, Mr. Speaker, if it occurs

again and there is another interruption across the floor from the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, I'd suggest your only alternative

is to take action under standing order 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Some members will be quite aware that the

Chair is well aware of standing order 20, particularly this Chair. The

hon. member for Mackenzie continues. The point of order is well taken.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate you

protecting me from that member for South Peace River who yells and

screams across the floor. He will not take

part in debate and will not

address himself to Bill 6, as I am doing under this debate.

I'm going to finish. I think I have two more paragraphs in this

correspondence, which I think really reflect the thinking of most

school trustees around the province of British Columbia — certainly the

school trustees that I have discussed the matter with.

The second to the last paragraph states:

"Contrary to opinion, I know it is much more difficult

to reconsider or withdraw an edict than it is to bull ahead, to 'not

bow to pressure.' Most trustees, district superintendents,

secretary-treasurers and teachers of all political stripes are

knowledgeable about the school system and are dedicated to the quality

of education" — Mr. Minister. "I implore you to put this legislation on

hold until you consult more fully with all those groups. For the sake

of all young people in this province, I ask you to rethink this

legislation.

"Marion L. Williams,

Chairman, School District 47."

So, Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said before….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no problem. I'm going to talk later about

the firing clause and the 3,000 teacher layoffs, but I'll wait until

you get back, Mr. Minister — which is fine; we all have to go out once

in a while.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one thing that is contained in this bill will

allow the minister to distribute funds on a political basis, in my

view. Let me put this scenario before you.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know. Why don't you ask him? Why don't you talk to him and ask him?

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you that this bill will allow the minister and the government….

Is that the green light already? I have hardly begun. I'll speak at

another time, but I was going to make a very important point here.

This will leave school districts open to receive funding from the

provincial government on a political basis, in my view. I'll make this

very quick. I see the green light is on. I was going to put a scenario

before you, but I'm not sure I've got time. But let's put it this way.

If a school district is in a

[ Page 872 ]

riding that the government wishes to win in some

future election, and a representative of that school board is saying

"yes" to everything, they could conceivably put this money into Social

Credit ridings.

I see the red light is on. My time has terminated, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to make one final short point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All right. In that case, since you won't give

me the time to say my piece, I move adjournment of this debate on this

legislation until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed, if any.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Division!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd say the ayes have it, and it's carried.

The House Leader.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I called a division, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my

question is this: when a member has control of the floor and is

speaking, and his time has elapsed, does he then have the prerogative

of adjourning debate until the next sitting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order as stated by

the Minister of Agriculture and Food is extremely well taken. However,

the Chair in times past has allowed members out of courtesy to continue

the last part of their phrase when the red light has gone on and has

allowed them to make motions at that point. However, I think clearly we

must be aware of the rules before us. There is a time limit. It is 40

minutes when that red light is on, and their time limit has expired.

The Chair would therefore, in future cases, not be prepared to accept

motions to adjourn or to amend at that time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for your

information, I did request a division prior to sitting down and taking

my place, and prior to your recognizing the member for Chilliwack (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder). The debate has been adjourned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time had expired, but the motion was

accepted, as I just indicated in this case, and the ayes have it. We

have an adjournment motion before us, and the Chair recognizes the hon.

House Leader.

HON MR. SCHROEDER: Someone called for a division, didn't they?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A division was called for.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A division was called for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognized….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I called a division before you recognized him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It takes a certain amount of members, hon. member.

Thank you, A division has been called for.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by expressing

to the House my deep quandary over why there was a delay in calling

this bill this afternoon, when the government was all mixed up and

didn't know where to go. I was ready to talk hours ago, and they only

give me just this little bit of time. It comes as a shock to me that

they would call this bill when we could have spent the afternoon on it

and made some progress.

[5:15]

I'd like to pick up where I was so rudely interrupted. Earlier this

morning I was making the point that a number of religious communities

were indeed upset by what this legislation was proposing to do. Of

course, I made a reference to the front page of the Times-Colonist .

It is important to remind this chamber exactly what we're debating now

so that we may remain in order. What we are debating now, Mr. Speaker,

as you know, is a proposal to hoist this bill for six months to enable

greater