1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7087 ]

CONTENTS

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7087

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7087

Private Members' Statements

Future of the north. Mr. Passarell –– 7087

Mr. Howard

Forest Fire Suppression. Mr. Howard –– 7088

Hon. Mr. Brummet

News reporting. Mr. Reynolds –– 7090

Mr. Cocke

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M202). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7092

Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 1) (Bill M204). Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 7093

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7094

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M205). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 7095

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7096

Municipal Act Review Committee Act (Bill M206). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 7096

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7097

Pacific Vocational Institute And British Columbia Institute Of Technology Amalgamation Act (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading –– 7097

Discharge of Bill 59 (title as above) –– 7098

Women's Career And Employment Opportunity Act (Bill M207). Second reading

Ms. Brown –– 7098

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7098

Adoption Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M210). Second reading

Ms. Brown –– 7099

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7099

Limitation Act Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M212). Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 7100

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7100

Vancouver And Cowichan School Districts Restoration Of Democracy Act (Bill M215),

Second reading

Mr. Rose –– 7101

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7103

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7104

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Foreign Arbitral Awards Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: In speaking to the bill very briefly, I will

say that it will set the scene in British Columbia for enforcement of

foreign arbitral awards. Canada has had a distinctly inhospitable

climate to foreign commercial arbitration, because Canada did not adopt

the New York Convention of 1958, a convention which allows for the

enforcement in Canada of arbitration awards obtained elsewhere.

British Columbia intends to open an international commercial

arbitration centre in May 1986. This will be a first. There is an

enormous opportunity to have such a centre. It will be the first in

Canada, and the first major one on the Pacific coast of North America.

The climate is right. The federal government has at last agreed to move

to adopt the convention, and it has the agreement of all provinces.

This is the first step to show that British Columbia means business. I

have great honour in moving first reading.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

TRAVEL AGENTS

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now, I'd like to make a few comments

with regard to what this bill accomplishes. These amendments have been

developed as a result of a full review of the Travel Agents Act and its

administration, which I launched earlier this year in consultation with

the travel industry. The amendments are designed to support the

delivery of our travel assurance program by enhancing the powers of

monitoring and control of the registrar of travel services over

high-risk registrants, to help ensure future solvency of the travel

assurance fund, and by providing for a council of industry experts to

provide input into the decisions of the registrar and discuss mutual

concerns on the operation of this very important industry. With those

comments, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FUTURE OF THE NORTH

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, the topic I would like to discuss

today is the future of the north. I want to be in a very positive

frame, because many of us who live in the north are looking to be

positive.

There's a great future for us in the far north, for native and

non-native alike. One of the projects that will be an opportunity for a

great future in the far north is the Klappan anthracite coal project.

This will not be in competition with any other coal project in the

northeast or southeast regions of our province. Gulf Canada is the

operator of this project. In just the last year of its being in

operation, starting, we've seen independent local truck drivers from

the Terrace area to Atlin being hired; and the first test shipment of

coal that went out through the port of Stewart, which is also having

its difficulties because of the economic downturn — there's a lot of

unemployment in Stewart — was loaded onto a ship called The Optimist . That is the way northerners are starting to look at some of the development.

Another thing that Gulf has done is hire locally for its initial

project. In this area of Iskut and Deas Lake and Telegraph Creek, where

Gulf Canada is hiring, some of these communities are facing 90 percent

unemployment. These jobs, to native people particularly, are offering a

future where a career can be made and pride can be developed by having

a job and an opportunity.

The community of Stewart has pushed for better development of its

port facility, the most northernly ice-free port in Canada. Its

residents are looking upon development as beneficial to the community.

We've seen that Gulf Canada, with its Klappan coal project, which will

be beneficial to the entire province, has started a movement throughout

the far north regarding development. Recently, Mr. Speaker, a mayor in

Terrace was elected running on a platform of having more development

for the Terrace area from the Klappan coal project. Northern residents

want jobs, not empty political promises.

Mining is a major industry in the far north. Mining is one of the

major economic aspects of this entire province. Many mining investors

over the years are afraid that another Bill 33 might be brought

forward. As northerners I think we're afraid that something of this

nature could be detrimental to the far north.

This year we saw an increase of 15 percent in claims staked in the

Atlin area. The three- and four-man placer operations in the Atlin area

contribute 80 percent of the revenue to the local community through

their gas sales, buying mining supplies and food sales. It's much

needed in the Atlin area. We're very positive on the placer operations.

Placer mining operations in the Dease Lake and Atlin area provide much

needed jobs for young people during the summertime. These are often the

only opportunities these young people have to have a job.

Other aspects of the future of the north include the Chevron project

north of Telegraph Creek, which has hired many young people from the

Telegraph Creek area. In the upper Nass, cottonwood timber sales have

provided much needed jobs and benefits to the longshoremen's union in

the community of Stewart, where many logs are shipped. The

[ Page 7088 ]

new D and T centre in Aiyansh was constructed by

local people, making jobs available. The highway 37 improvement

project, which is a shorter route to Alaska, has hired many local

equipment operators, allowing a future for small equipment operators in

the Iskut-Dease area, Stewart, Terrace and the Cassiar area. The

Klappan coal project will improve road development of Highway 37. There

is a future for road development to hire local equipment operators from

these areas.

[10:15]

There is a future for all residents in the north. The north is the

last frontier in this province. There is a future that will continue

for residents of the north who want jobs — jobs provided in part by

private enterprise. People are not afraid of development. We who live

in the north live there by choice; we're not forced to live in the

north. Development in the far north provides jobs. Mr. Speaker, when

people are working, they pay taxes. When you pay taxes, the taxes go to

improve a lifestyle for all of us in this province. Paying taxes helps

build roads and helps build medical centres...

AN HON. MEMBER: Schools.

MR. PASSARELL: ...and schools. One can't be negative against

all development. Northerners want a future, a future where one is

gainfully employed if one is willing to work. Development companies

throughout this province can't be chased away by economic policies

developed by those who have no idea about or interest in the far north.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: What do you know about the north, Frank? Tell us all you know in 30 seconds.

MR. HOWARD: I can tell them about Oak Bay, Jack. At least I

didn't run away. Just between you and me, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how one

goes about redesignating the riding of Omineca to be the second member

for Oak Bay instead, eh? No, Jack, I've got faith in the north; that's

why I still live there.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has consistently said — and others have, as

well — that when an economy is based upon the extraction and export of

raw resources, we are all thereby extremely vulnerable to world events

and factors beyond our control. What seems to be the case developing at

the moment — not only in the extreme northwestern part of the province,

but in other parts as well — is that we are going to, once again,

consider re-churning our economy as an extraction resource exporting

operation. That leaves us vulnerable. That leaves us outside of having

control, of being masters in our own houses. Yes, perhaps within that

narrow context of making us vulnerable, Klappan coal is a valuable

thing to do. It's an export of a raw material, as is northeast coal.

I don't know how many members opposite know — probably not many of

them, and certainly not those who have had any utterances today so far

— that there are some very important and valuable byproducts from

anthracite coal that we could develop in the northwest from a

combination of the aluminium that's produced there in Kitimat and the

anthracite coal that exists in the Klappan valley. We could be

producing filters and electronic components for worldwide marketing.

It's absolutely possible, absolutely feasible.

That's where the energy of the government should be directed: in

trying to promote jobs around the question of increasing the wealth

production of this province, and not continuing to make us vulnerable

to every country's influence in the world against us. That's much more

important.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) a little while ago

extended a forest licence to a company in the northwest. Their

principle purpose is going to be to log and to export the raw logs just

across the B.C.-Alaska border to supply a pulp mill in Ketchikan in the

panhandle of Alaska. There must be something seriously wrong with a

government that thinks it's economically sound to keep pulp mills in

Alaska running and not pay attention to using those logs for processing

here.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I spoke with the owner of one of the

companies who got one of those forest licences, and it is contemplated

that they're going to haul those logs out of the logged area right

through the town of Stewart, dump them in Hyder, Alaska, boom them in

Hyder, Alaska, and provide jobs for Americans in booming and towing and

sorting those logs so that they can be towed away to Ketchikan. That is

not a sensible way to deal with resources. That is not a sensible way

to deal with a creation of long-term jobs for British Columbians.

Yes, we in this party have absolute faith in the north and in the

northwest and work toward it every way that we can. We will continue to

do so. We'll bend our efforts to providing long-term jobs, not

short-term vulnerable ones. Perhaps in closing the second member for

Oak Bay might want to engage in the debate himself

MR. PASSARELL: I appreciate the comments; they were done very

reasonably for once. One of the things that we have to discuss is the

member's statement of short-term. Klappan coal will be providing jobs

for over 30 years, and to me that's not short-term.

The logging aspect — well, maybe that member is not aware, but many

of those loggers who are hauling those logs in through the port of

Stewart come from the Terrace area and have the opportunity to be able

to have a job and use their equipment for once.

In regard to the member's statement on anthracite coal as a

short-term aspect, it is true, and there are discussions going on with

regard to Klappan and using that coal — not just for shipment to other

countries, which also provides much needed jobs in this province and

revenues for this country, but to replace the diesel generators that

presently provide power in many communities in the far north. There are

ongoing discussions in regard to using the lower grade of coal to

replace the diesel generators and our dependency on diesel. To me,

that's a future, a future that we can all be proud of. There must be

mature discussions going on between all levels of government, between

all members of this Legislature, to bring a benefit to all people of

this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, continuing the private members'

statements, the Chair has been advised by the member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) that, because of a throat problem and laryngitis, he will

not be able to take his place in debate. We move, then, to the third

item, the member for Skeena.

FOREST FIRE SUPPRESSION

MR. HOWARD: The Ministry of Forests Act is the one that sets out the statutory legal authorities and responsibilities

[ Page 7089 ]

of the Minister of Forests. One of those

responsibilities under

section 4 of the act, under the direction of the

minister, is to manage, protect and conserve the forest and range

resources of the Crown. It's that "manage, protect and conserve" aspect

that I want to deal with.

One of the things in preserving the forests of British Columbia is

ensuring that they don't get burnt up with forest fires, and that if

forest fires do take place they are detected quickly, a first-line

attack takes place and the fire is put out as quickly as possible.

In 1983 a brief was submitted to the Premier by the Council of

Forest Industries, the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the

Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association and the northern interior

lumber sector of COFI. It says: "Recent dramatic escalations and the

very high cost of fire suppression in this province suggest to industry

observers that there are more opportunities to become substantially

more cost-effective. These costs urgently need to be brought under

tighter control."

In response to that, the government and the Minister of Forests

succumbed and said yes and sought, through the inappropriate

application of the restraint program, to shut down the fire halls in

the province, to close ranger stations, to curtail the forest fire

suppression activities. They were warned of this. The Minister of

Forests was warned in September of last year in a document called

"Forest and Range Resource Analysis 1984," where his ministry

officials.... They had the right approach; people in the public service

knew what the danger was. They told the minister — let me quote from

page E-63 — that "presuppression activities such as fire prevention,

detection and initial attack have been reduced. This may lead to more

and larger fires where the costs and damages will be infinitely higher

than the original saving." A very succinct, two-sentence, sad

commentary; a sad thing to have to draw to the minister's attention.

I submit to you that the Minister of Forests failed miserably in his

responsibility under the Forest Act to protect the forest and range

resources because he ignored that warning. This year people in North

Bend, people in Canal Flats, people in Rock Creek, people in Nakusp,

people in a great many communities in this province...

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: ...that that garbage-mouth from South Peace River

probably has never visited in his life.... Their lives were placed in

jeopardy.

[10:30]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member has been a member of this

House and other parliaments for long enough to know that language of

that type cannot be tolerated, encouraged or condoned and hardly

reflects upon a member occupying a seat in this chamber. I would ask

him to retract that statement without qualification.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Without hesitation, Mr. Speaker. It's one of

those expressions that slip out when one is enticed to do so by words

uttered opposite that Your Honour doesn't hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: It's not your inability; it's just that they're

uttered in such a low tone of voice, deliberately so Your Honour

doesn't hear them.

In any event, people's property and lives were placed in jeopardy

this year in the province because the Minister of Forests and the

government ignored the warnings that went towards them. During the fire

season, during the horrendous difficulty that faced people, the only

comment of any consequence that we heard from the minister was to the

effect that "You can't blame Social Credit; we didn't start the fires."

What arrant, flippant nonsense! Nobody suggested that they started the

fires. No one that I heard did. Maybe the minister had that in the back

of his mind. But that's not the way to deal with that horrendous

situation.

What the minister said was that we had the worst fire season for

years; that's why we had more forest fires. But Dr. Evelyn Pinkerton,

in an analysis of the forest fire situation in the Nelson forest region

this summer, had this to say:

"By reducing the number of ranger stations, the summer crews

in each station and the trained firefighters who were known to and could be

rapidly recruited by each station, the organizational fabric of local fire suppression

was torn apart in the 1980s. Local detection systems and communication and monitoring

of fires were likewise undermined."

Undermined by the irresponsible application of restraint in shutting down the

fire halls.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pinkerton goes on in an analysis of a statistical

nature, comparing 1979 to 1985. She points out that in the Nelson

forest region in 1979 there were a great many more high-risk fire days

than in 1985; that more fires were started in 1979 than in 1985; but in

1985, as a result of the irresponsibility of this government, we saw

burned up 14 times the amount of timber in this province than was

burned in 1979. Now something is seriously wrong.

The thing that's wrong is that we have a government that doesn't

care about fair treatment for people in this province, doesn't care

about preserving and protecting the lives of citizens and doesn't care

about protecting our forests. I suggest the only way we're going to

straighten that out is to get rid of the government.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the word

"muckraker" any less objectionable in this House than garbage-mouth,"

as I hear uttered by the hon. member for South Peace River, when he

doesn't have the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: The point made by the member for Nelson-Creston

is a valid one. I would hope that members of the assembly would

remember that they have the same obligation to guard themselves in

debate as they do in remarks when they do not have the floor.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As acting Minister of Forests I would like

to respond, although it's difficult to respond in a rational manner to

the standard irrational diatribe by that member from Skeena. He talked

about irresponsibility, and I think there's nothing more irresponsible

in this province than the opposition's efforts to try to discredit the

people in the forest industry and to put out distorted information about

[ Page 7090 ]

what is happening in this province. The member will

undoubtedly come back with the same sort of attack as he does almost

every day, bordering on the verge of propriety with the terms that he

uses.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

He talks about "doesn't care." I think this government does care,

and there are many, many instances where they do care. For instance, he

makes absolutely no mention of the lightning-strike system, or of the

computerized system that has been put into place in this province,

which is detecting fires much more quickly than any other system has

done in the past. He has made no mention of the 8,000 trained

firefighters in this province, plus others that are available. He has

made no mention of the forest-fire suppression programs that are going

on in each ministry region and office, where they do have plans, they

do have programs. In the usual ghoul system that the opposition uses,

if something bad happens, then that is the whole focus of their

emphasis.

For instance, he makes no mention of the 3,400-some fires this year

that were detected and put out very quickly without getting out of

control. All that he mentions is some of those. He talks about lives in

jeopardy. Steps were taken, perhaps on the extreme side, to make sure

that no lives were endangered. When that happens, the government is

criticized when the fire does not burn down those homes. But I don't

know whether that member has seen a fire travelling at 45 miles an

hour. You do not have the luxury of saying: "As soon as it gets there

we will move you out, but we will take no steps before that." So the

Ministry of Forests, with the provincial emergency program, did take

steps to make sure that whatever else was lost, there would be no lives

or personal damage to those people. It cannot all be prevented, but I

can assure this House and this province that there is a very strong

fire-suppression program, using high technology, using scanners, using

all of that, using initial attack planes and helicopters.

Yes, this summer was a bad summer because of the extended period of

the dry season. There was no relief. The member will use figures about

high fire days and so on. That happens in any year. In very few years

has it happened that this has been such an extended period — almost two

months.

The Minister of Forests cares very much, and has put into place many

programs: the highest technology, the computerization, the trained

firefighters that are out there doing their very best to control these

fires. Certainly I need to express the obvious resentment that must be

there in the Ministry of Forests staff, who do a great job, by the

Minister of Forests, by all of his people, by their fire-suppression

crews. Because a fire gets away and takes a while to control, they are

maligned by this opposition for purely political reasons. That goes on

time and time again, where they focus on any bad thing that happens,

rather than ever giving credit to the many, many things and the

technologies that are put into place and the many people who really

work to try to preserve the forest industry in this province. If they

would quit attacking once in a while and give a suggestion, it would

certainly help.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think that with some calm I should

point out to the House that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

has just distorted what I said, and that's standard for that

government. At no time, either in this House or outside.... And I wrote

down the minister's words: he accused me of discrediting people in the

forest industry. At no time have I done that. That is a false

statement, Mr. Minister, an inaccurate statement and a distortion in

order to advance your own peculiar political interests, whatever they

might be.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't say that.

MR. HOWARD: Those are your words and I can't be responsible if you don't know what comes out of your mouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister please

refrain from calling while the member has the floor, and would the

member address the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: The minister has also said I have maligned the

Forests staff. That is another falsehood. I've stood up for the Forests

ministry staff on every occasion; I've applauded them. They did a

tremendous job this summer, and I've told them so. The difficulty was

that they had a minister who was careless in the manner in which he was

listening to their advice. That's the problem — a ministerial

governmental problem — not the staff. That's another example of

distorting the situation in order to — I don't know what — protect the

minister's position itself.

He made references to the fact that perhaps — this was by innuendo

on his part — we were critical because the houses didn't burn down.

What a flippant falsehood that is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly what he said. No, Mr. Speaker, we

can't permit a minister of the Crown to stand up and make those kinds

of false accusations and have them go unchallenged. Nearly everything

that the minister said with respect to my position was not a true

reflection of my position; it was a distortion of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. As you suggesting that the minister was telling falsehoods? If so I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: That's a conclusion....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If that is so, the Chair would ask you to withdraw any such accusation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that's a conclusion that the Chair

may have to come to. I didn't. I just simply said that he distorted

with false statements what I had said.

NEWS REPORTING

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, news is more than simple

information. It is education. We need to learn about the world around

us and we often rely on the news media for that education. It is

extremely important that we, as citizens in a free society, be informed

on all sides of an issue, not just the information that might reinforce

a particular point of view. When only one side of an issue is

presented, it may in fact be indoctrination and not education. The list

of complaints against the press is diverse and sometimes contradictory,

but there is a consistency to the questions that the public ask most

often. Are the reporters scrupulously accurate? Or will they

[ Page 7091 ]

reshape a quote or ignore a fact in order to make a

point? All too often, some reporters look only for controversy and not

for the substance of what is going on. They tend to add a personal bias

to the story rather than get the facts. The reader is subjected to

sensational and inflammatory quotes. Too often the media reports

allegations before getting a response from the target of those

allegations.

Over the last weekend and earlier this week British Columbians in

the Victoria area and the lower mainland were subjected to coverage of

an allegation that could not in all sense be considered accurate, fair

or objective. At least 18 articles appeared in British Columbia's major

daily newspapers, including headlines like the one from the Province ,

"Friedmann Links Government to Break-in," with the accompanying lead

paragraph, "It could be B.C.'s own Watergate." From the Victoria Times-Colonist : "Socreds Tied to Illegal Break-in." And from the Sun , "Government Accused of Theft," and, "Government Accused of Pay-off for Break-in."

They went on and on through the week until finally, following the

statement of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the

Legislature Wednesday, the Times-Colonist ran a front page

story headlined: "Socred Ministers Vent Outrage Over Break-in Tale."

Mr. Speaker, there's finally a headline that called the allegations

what they were — a Friedmann tale. In the Province , interestingly enough, after those statements by the minister the story died.

The NDP, merchants of muck, brought this simmering allegation to a

full boil. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — the

socialists' main merchant — went on CBC TV news November 17 and accused

the government of breaking the law and even cited Watergate. That

member's so-called comfort zone could be termed a gutter of politics.

He repeated the false statements of their ally, Karl Friedmann, and we

all know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Friedmann and Mr. Barrett both work for

the same radio station. It is more than a coincidence that Mr.

Friedmann is reported to have a contract with Barrett Communications

Ltd., Dave Barrett's own company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. REYNOLDS: Who's Dave Barrett? Why, he's only the former

NDP Premier and, now, NDP bagman who sends out fund-raising letters for

the socialist cause.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-General, during his

investigations of this whole allegation last week, ever decided whether

the rating period was on at CJOR when these accusations were made.

Very often the first impression the public receives from a story is

almost always the one which lasts. And it is, or should be, the job of

a reporter to provide factual information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to a front-page photo of the

Legislative Assembly buildings that appeared in the Victoria Times-Colonist

on July 28, 1983. The caption under the photo read: "Defiant civil

servants posted solidarity signs in support of protesters outside." I

don't know if it was deliberate or not, but if the reporter and/or

photographer had taken the time, he would have found that those

Solidarity windows belonged to the NDP caucus research. Those pictures

in the photo were not defiant civil servants, but members of the NDP

staff. This irresponsible error left a false impression in the minds of

the readers, and the seriousness of the issue only served to magnify

the impact of the slanted, sensationalist and irresponsible reporting.

[10:45]

We all make errors, and when that happens corrections are made.

That's fine. We all have political preferences; that's fine too. But a

journalist must strive for accuracy and, more important, objectivity.

What is objectivity? Webster's dictionary defines it as treating or

dealing with facts without distortion, or by personal feelings or

prejudices.

During the 1983 provincial election campaign, there were a number of

interviews aired on CBC in which a particular reporter, assigned by the

daily paper he worked for to cover our Premier's campaign, gave his

opinion of the Premier's performance. This intrepid reporter made it

plain for all voters in the province that he considered Social Credit

through in British Columbia; the tide was running against the incumbent

government. As the results poured in on election night, this same poor

fellow appeared on CBC-TV from Kelowna, deflated and abashed. He looked

more like a defeated candidate than a reporter assigned to cover the

event. I guess he has recovered from that embarrassing defeat. He has

written a book about B.C. politics and that 1983 campaign. One of his

colleagues in the media had some thoughts on this

reporter-turned-author and called the book: "The Embittered Complaint

of a Journalist Who Lacks the Grasp of Reality."

Stanley Burke, publisher of the Nanaimo Times ,

has on a number of occasions characterized the British Columbia press

as leftward leaning. He says advocacy journalism — soapbox journalism —

is probably more prevalent here than anywhere else on the continent. He

should know; he's been a part of the media in this province and this

country for many, many years. To some, particularly those in the media

industry and special interest groups that benefit from soapbox

journalism, criticism of the media constitutes an attack on freedom of

the press. But the press earns its right to be free by reporting the

truth and defining clear lines between news, editorials, comment and

advertising. Selection of detail is the proper venue of the artist, but

art is not fact; innuendo is not news. I would not suggest for a moment

that we would want to rely solely on government for information, as do

citizens of the U.S.S.R. and other totalitarian states. B.C. has a free

media in the best traditions of the free world; nothing should ever

change the freedoms they enjoy. Yet those freedoms carry with them

their own responsibilities. The small, elite segment of our community

which we call the media should never neglect its duty to provide the

most unbiased information possible for the rest of us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one of the make-news kids has just

spoken to this House. He represents a group over there that

manufactures news, and he has the gall to stand in this House and curse

the entire media in the province, talking about their left leanings —

this, that and the other thing. Notice that he quotes others who seem

to be closer to his persuasion. Everybody has a right to their opinion,

and every person has that right in a free society such as that member

described. He talks about citizens in a free society, and then as a

legislator he goes about trying to muzzle people in a free society.

That's utter nonsense.

He talks about one-sided points. The one-sided points are points

that he doesn't agree with. For example, he talks about the papergate

proposition. The fact is, whether or not he liked it or agreed with it,

that was news. He represents and supports

[ Page 7092 ]

a government that won't make an inquiry into that

proposition. They'll do their own thing. They'll send in their own

investigators. He talked about gutter politics — that's when he was

talking about our party, the muckrakers and so forth. That's the way he

describes it. That's his unbiased, legislative high-profile person.

I notice he was particularly unhappy with the CBC. Why has that

member got the kind of feelings that he has? Let me tell you, he has

reason to be angry with the media. Allan Fotheringham said about him

one time, in a book, "I have a candidate, a man I will hold up and

defend to death as the nominee for the worst member of Parliament of

the decade. Voters, I give you handsome John Reynolds, the one-edition

wonder, now residing in the B.C. Legislature behind the tinsel."

There's the real tinsel. Now you can understand why that member....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Two hundred and sixty-five. But that was over ten years.

He was also described as having "the attention span of a

hummingbird. Disapproving press critics would attempt to zero in on one

of his spurious issues, only to find he had fled the subject, flitting

off to yet another one-day cause." No wonder, Mr. Speaker, he has some

doubts about the media, because he hasn't particularly been treated the

way he would like to be treated by the media. Maclean's

magazine said: "In the world of politics one man stands head and

shoulders below the rest: John Reynolds. When I initially detailed many

of the above activities, it was the first and, I believe, the only time

that Joe Clark, then Prime Minister, ever complimented me about

anything. Reynolds was then a member of his caucus."

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder? The fact of the matter is: if you place yourself

in a position to be criticized, then be criticized like a man. Take it like

a man. Take it like a human being. Take it like a person.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And even take it like a woman. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. Speaker, we can understand his resentment. I stand here to

tell you: I've been in politics longer than he has. I've been

criticized by the press, but I'm going to take that. It's their duty to

say what they think, to say it like it is. To stand in that way is to

stand in the way of the democratic process in this country, and we

should not, as legislators, do that.

Mr. Speaker, that was an outrageous defamation of character for all

of the press. I stand here to defend them calling it like it is, the

way they see it. They're human beings.

MR. REYNOLDS: I want to thank the member for New Westminster

for giving me some of the quotes I've had over the 10 or 15 years I've

been in politics. I would like to just suggest to him, Mr. Speaker,

that his party's very upset because of the side they took on this issue

I talked about this morning, because they were so wrong in supporting

one of their friends, Mr. Friedmann.

If he listened to what I said, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't attacking the

press for what they said about this member of the Legislature, or what

they say about our government in particular. I was talking about

accuracy, accuracy in the media.

To say that we're concerned about manufacturing the news.... This

government is one of the freest governments in North America. We talk

to reporters. We're in the papers all the time. We're not afraid of

what they print about us.

But when some of us see stories like I mentioned, there is some

irresponsibility. When you get somebody with the character of a Stanley

Burke, who will talk about the media not treating things fairly, I

think there are some concerns. There are members of our own media — one

from the Vancouver Sun has just written about that other member

of the media who wrote a book — who are concerned about accuracy in

media. Mr. Speaker, I quote Barry Bingham, chief executive officer of

the Louisville newspapers, and a former chairman of the International

Press Institute, who puts this case with forceful simplicity. He said:

"You cannot hold on to a free press if it behaves irresponsibly. The

idea that our mission is so high that no one should question our

performance is illogical. The higher the mission the more

responsibility we should carry out."

Mr. Speaker, it's fairness, accuracy and objectivity. I don't think

that's too much to ask. Sure, it's easy. The member made my story by

some of those quotes that he gave today. When reporters want to make

personal attacks on individuals, I don't like that, whether it's one of

our members or one of their members, and I know they don't either. If

he wants to start digging up quotes from some reporters who happen to

maybe be right wing, that's not being objective either, if he's trying

to report what these people want to do on this side. We can all dig

that muckraking up, Mr. Speaker, but that's their game. They think it's

going to win them an election, but it won't. It's the muckraking from

the NDP that's going to ensure that the Socreds go back in next time

with a bigger majority than they had last time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would draw to the attention of the

House that the last two speakers have used the term "muckraking," which

is an unparliamentary term and not normally acceptable to this chamber.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, public bills in the hands of private members. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate. The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) spoke to the bill yesterday.

We have the opportunity of responding to a certain amount, as we have

previously.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker,

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places, very briefly, as

I suggested yesterday, has to a very large extent resolved itself. It appears

that the trend is to continue to reach a resolution — and, I believe, without

the necessity of provincial legislation. Municipalities are becoming more and

more aggressive with respect to regulating smoking in public places. I have

stated previously: if a municipality passes such a bylaw which requires the

signature of the Minister of Health to be enforced, it is my intent to sign

such bylaws as they come forward, as has been done in

[ Page 7093 ]

the past. So without added comment, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill M204.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 1)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill M204. I

put this bill on the order paper so that everyone interested knows the

position that I take, as well as many of my colleagues and, I'm sure,

many people on the other side of the House.

The Medical Practitioners Act is a pretty tight little instrument

when it comes to excluding other people who have another direction with

respect to medical attention or the treatment of illness. Acupuncture

is looked upon as a quaint little procedure, something that has been

going on in other parts of the world for many years — as a matter of

fact, many thousands of years. That is how we regard it, because of the

fact that we have highly skilled, highly trained people in the medical

profession who feel that their avenue is the only avenue to successful

treatment of illness and, for that matter, the only good procedure in

terms of prevention.

Mankind has a particular attitude.... Most of us are quite small "c"

conservative in our attitudes. Those attitudes are attitudes that we

grow up with. We're educated in that direction, and if we don't

understand something, then we write it off as irrelevant, as something

that one cannot trust, without even really looking at it.

Acupuncture has never really been properly looked at in this

province. For a short time there were a few hesitating steps forward.

That was the situation back in the seventies. We've set up a couple of

pain clinics, but there has been no expansion and no acceptance of the

profession or the treatment.

[11:00]

Not to blow my own horn, I have taken the trouble over the years to

at least look at acupuncture with some of my colleagues, particularly

when we were government, and personally as well since then. As a matter

of fact, in travelling to China in 1974, I spent considerable time at

Chinese hospitals where both western and traditional medicine — which

is what they call it there — were practised. I think Shanghai Hospital

No. 8 is probably one of the best examples that I can use.

One of the reasons that I wanted to go to Shanghai Hospital No. 8

was that Dr. Chen, who was the director of that particular hospital,

had gained a worldwide reputation. He was an orthopaedic specialist. I

think he was being paid $75 a month or something like that for his

expertise, but around the world they wanted to talk to Dr. Chen. As a

matter of fact, he did move around. He moved to places to talk about

his procedures — places such as New York and the European capitals of

medicine. As an orthopaedic specialist, he was years ahead of his

counterparts in the western world. They began sewing on hands — that

is, hands that had been amputated by accident — years before the first

trial procedure was done here, in the sixties, late fifties. They

became so expert at it that they finally got to the point they could

even put fingers back on, and that is microsurgery if you ever saw it.

When you're thinking in terms of joining up nerves and tiny little

blood vessels and so on and so forth, that is....

They got to a point where if a person was hurt, they would be flown.

Now in China in 1974, they weren't flying very many people around very

far, because, you know, it's an expensive.... But they did fly a

worker, and providing they got them at Shanghai No. 8, and providing

the limb was refrigerated, they could do that, get that procedure

underway and successful in most instances, from all over China. Now

that's the status of that hospital.

I'm only using this example because of the fact that in that very

same hospital supported by that fantastic doctor was a whole area where

they used acupuncture. They used acupuncture as anesthesia. They used

acupuncture for, believe it or not, hypertension. They used acupuncture

for, of course, pain relief. They used acupuncture for hemorrhages.

Mr. Speaker, that's a pretty classy example, when you consider the

highly skilled, highly trained people that were working together in

that particular hospital. I believe we should be taking a far closer

look. Let's not just say: "Oh, well, this is some sort of procedure

that came out of the Orient." Why would they continually use the

procedure for 3,000 years if it was useless? We are far too

conservative in terms of looking for other ways of caring for people,

treating illness. As I said, we've had since late 1974, early 1975, the

pain clinics. That was an experiment. As a matter of fact, when we set

them up I announced that it was just the first step toward finding ways

and means of assessing whether or not a therapist had proper training.

But they didn't go beyond pain clinics. As a matter of fact, if you go

there, there is such a lineup that you can't have proper treatment,

because there's just not enough to go around. So I think we'd better

smarten up.

Now why have I put this bill forward now and not before? Because I

have confidence in the new group that are the association governing

this particular procedure. We have an association that has taken

responsibility to see to it that the members of that association are

trained before they are admitted to the association. I know that every

time anything new happens, you're always worried about charlatans. As a

matter of fact, some doctors still take the attitude that every

chiropractor is a charlatan. Now that's dwindling because they do have

training and they do have success, so why should they be eliminated

from the fold of those who are providing a service?

I say also that acupuncture has come of age in British Columbia.

That sounds like an unreasonable thing for me to be saying, when you

think that it came of age thousands of years ago elsewhere. But it has

taken this long, and now I believe that that group has taken the

responsibility, has taken the time, to see to it that they know how to

police themselves.

We need more than Bill M204. Bill M204 is just merely the first

step, but if I had included the other relevant aspects of what

government must do in recognizing a new group, I would have been out of

order, and by now the minister would have been up on his feet and said:

"Sorry, you've got a bill that requires government dollars, and

therefore...." I'm not asking for any government dollars here. All I'm

asking for is an amendment to the medical act, and it's an amendment

that can be made, particularly if the government is prepared to go the

next step. I ask that this bill be passed unanimously, and that the

legislation necessary to set up the proper controls be brought forward

by the government, as only they can.

[ Page 7094 ]

I believe that everyone should have the right to this procedure. I

believe that by leaving it as we have done, out there in a sort of

limbo, we make the possibility of being treated by charlatans much more

likely. If we did have a proper process, then I think — I know — that

people would then have access to that procedure in the most beneficial

way. I am absolutely convinced that they can govern themselves.

I was most interested when talking with a number of acupuncturists —

Mary Watterson, for one. Mary Watterson is the president of the

Acupuncture Association. Among other things, she is married to a

physician. She is from a family of highly educated, highly motivated

people — many medical doctors and others in that group — and I believe

that she and some of her colleagues have done wonders to bring

acupuncture to the point that they are of age. They're at a point now

where I believe the government should immediately give them all the

assistance it possibly can to make this procedure relevant, to make it

legally available. It's available, but it's really illegal. I have to

stand here and confess that I have availed myself of an illegal

procedure.

Let me tell you a little bit of history. I shouldn't be talking

about all my wounds and problems, but the fact of the matter is I

became hypertensive in 1974. At that time I was Minister of Health. I

was treated by conventional medicine for a number of years. They

brought it down, but not enough and certainly nowhere near normal, with

a fair amount of prescription drugs, as anybody that looks at our plan

would know. Three years ago I availed myself of acupuncture, and my

hypertension dwindled off within three months to a point where I was

normal, and I have been normal for that full three years. In fact, it

has already reduced the chemicals that were being put in my body by 50

percent.

That is not one of the procedures they really talk a lot about. As a

matter of fact, it was one of things that, when I had seen a delegation

of them, I indicated I was unhappy about. In all the literature I

hadn't read anything about it.

[11:15]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: As far as I am concerned, this is not a joking

matter. Some of my colleagues, some of the people in the House feel it

is. The fact of the matter is, I'm standing in this House and very

seriously talking about what I consider to be a first-class procedure.

I'm not saying it's going to work for everything; I'm not saying it's

necessarily going to work for others who may have hypertension; but I

think it's something that we should have access to as human beings. I

should be able to take my body, within reason, where I want in order to

get the kind of treatment that I need. Believe me, I sure appreciate

it, having lived in that iffy zone of hypertension for some time, and

only being able to hold it down to a high level but not absolutely as

high as it was, for the period until I got on to acupuncture. So as far

as I'm concerned, my example is merely one of many. I have known people

who have had crippling pain, and it's been helped. I have known people

who have had all sorts of illnesses that they have had treated with

acupuncture. Some successfully, others naturally.... You can't treat

everything successfully, and the first to admit that would be the

medical profession.

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill M204, I just ask that people

be allowed legally to have access to a procedure that has come of age here.

It's come of age elsewhere a lot sooner. There are places in North America

where it is now legal. Alberta has recently made that move; they're having

a bit of trouble there putting it all together, but nonetheless they're

going in the right direction. In the United States there are a number of areas

where acupuncture is freely available, in spite of the fact that down there

the AMA is a pretty strong, tough union: the American Medical Association.

So, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what some conservative members of

society say — and I'm not talking now politically; I'm talking small

"c" conservative — I believe it's time that this government and this

Legislature acknowledge a particularly important procedure that should

become part of the arsenal of medicine.

Mr. Speaker, let's see the dawn of a new age today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to some of the

statements made by the member for New Westminster with respect to his

proposal to amend the Medical Practitioners Act, the question of adding

to the list of practices which do not constitute the practice of

medicine and therefore are not in contravention of such

an act....

Adding to that list the practice of acupuncture occurs at a time when a

committee represented in part by acupuncturists and medical physicians

and others is investigating that very action the member is seeking in

his bill.

The member mentioned the setting up a few years back of a couple of

pain clinics where acupuncture and other procedures have been used in

the relief of pain, or at least in the attempt to remove pain. The

acupuncturists and the associations have changed over the years. There

has been quite a change in membership and I think in attitude and

certainly in style. The medical professionals — those who are medical

doctors — by tradition and by nature seem to feel reluctant to consider

any other form of medical procedures other than that which would be

commonly practised by an MD. The list to which this member would wish

to add one other category, I think, indicates that although the medical

profession generally is very conservative — and I think that's probably

the way they should be — and very traditional, over a period of time in

British Columbia there have been breakthroughs and in some instances

the leading edge and in others catching up and so on.

The member did mention that the acupuncturists have been dealt with

in Alberta in a way the association in B.C. is suggesting we consider

for our province. In B.C. over the years the governments of the day in

their wisdom have decided that it is not offensive to the Medical

Practitioners Act to practise chiropractic; therefore we have the

Chiropractors Act. The member for New Westminster spoke about

charlatans and others who, over history, have been engaged in certain

practices where they've been condemned. Certainly the chiropractors

have been called many names over the years. There still remains some

type of knee-jerk reaction by some members of the medical profession

when the word "chiropractor" is used, to the point where in a

celebrated case a couple of years back it was suggested that a

chiropractor had been denied office space in a building because the

building was owned by medical doctors, and the opinion of one was that

it was in violation of their code of conduct, or whatever, about

associating with chiropractors. But today it is common for medical

doctors to receive treatment from chiropractors. It is common for some

to refer patients to chiropractors. That does show that it's not beyond

the realm of possibility that other forms of treatment can be recognized

[ Page 7095 ]

by the one organization society has always relied upon to make the decision — the medical profession themselves.

In addition to the chiropractors, the dentists were, at some time,

permitted to do what they do; naturopaths, optometrists, pharmacists,

physiotherapists, dieticians, podiatry, psychology, the Dental

Technicians Act, opticians, vendors of dental or surgical instruments,

apparatus, appliances and so on; and, of course, nurses.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the dawning of a new era, which the

member referred to, is probably not far away. I believe the committee

that has been assigned the responsibility of considering acupuncture —

in a very serious way — likely will produce a paper, which I believe —

and I'm not attempting to prejudice their findings — will probably

recommend the practice of acupuncture in a controlled manner similar to

the process they've developed in Alberta.

We have one argument only — not mine personally, but the

counterargument. The argument is that acupuncture should be performed

only by a medical doctor. Therefore it would not be illegal. So what

we're being told is that the procedure is acceptable, but it's who is

performing it that's in question.

Medical doctors have indicated, I think, by their action that

acupuncture is not likely to become a common part of their skill.

Therefore we have an anomaly in that there are skilled people, but not

qualified by degree; there are degreed people not qualified by skill.

The interesting argument is that the process of acupuncture does not

seem to be in doubt, but it's a matter of who is going to have the

assignment.

I would think the committee probably will be bringing down some very

strong recommendations, and it's quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that in

the not-too-distant future what the member is seeking by way of a

private member's bill may indeed become the practice in British

Columbia.

I want to say to the member that it is an important subject. It is

being reviewed most seriously, and I would think that we probably will

see some action in the not-too-distant future. It's unfortunate that we

do not have more open-mindedness when it comes to the health

professionals with respect to their empire-building or empire-guarding

or turf-protection. There is no question that what we recognize today

as medical practice would not have embraced many of the practices their

predecessors were involved in, but that was the state of the art at

those times.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the discussion that's

taken place with respect to this. I am not going to suggest that it be

approved at this time, but I would ask to move adjournment of debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M205.

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

MRS. WALLACE: We're going to change to a different topic

entirely, Mr. Speaker, but one that is probably the most important

element there is in sustaining life, and that is water. Without water

we can do nothing. One only has to look at what has gone on in Ethiopia

and those neighbouring African countries to recognize the horrific

situation that results when you misuse your natural water resource. At

the federal level we have recently had a review of our water resources

in Canada and British Columbia. Dr. Pearse has indicated in no

uncertain terms that we are not as abundantly supplied with water as we

might think.

Certainly in eastern Canada it has become quite evident that we have

serious pollution problems in our lakes and rivers there. I don't know

how many of you read the

article in the paper yesterday about the St.

Clair River and the kind of pollutants that were found in that river

during recent tests.

Here in B.C. we have what we assume to be ample water, and yet we

have continuing problems relative to the quality of the water, the

demands upon our waterways for various developments, the conflict

between forestry and fisheries, the conflict between hydro dams and

free-flowing rivers, the industrial use and pollutants that go into

those surface waters. We do have a Water Act which purports to regulate

water. But the application of those regulations is extremely

inadequate. They vary from place to place and from

interpretation to

interpretation.

There is no regulation in this province over groundwater. One

complements the other, and without some regulations over groundwater,

we are going to find that it becomes just as difficult to protect as

has our surface water, even with the supposed regulations that we

presently have.

I have cited examples in this chamber before when we have discussed

this same issue of the kind of things that can occur and quite legally.

I think the most astounding one was where two neighbours were having a

bit of a rumpus. One neighbour's well was just near the border of the

property line. The other neighbour brought in a drilling outfit,

drilled a well just adjacent on his side of the property line and

dumped two or three truckloads of salt into the well, which, of course,

polluted the neighbour's well. There was nothing that could be done. He

was quite within his rights.

[11:30]

A lot of the rural areas rely on groundwater for their domestic

water — deep-driven wells. I know that in my own constituency both

North Cowichan and Duncan rely on groundwater, and even more rural

areas. Mill Bay is one example where there was considerable concern a

few years ago because a developer was proposing to move in and drive

down a well into the same aquifer to supply water for his particular

development. The improvement district, which had invested their tax

funds into putting down a well to supply that community with a

community water system, were gravely concerned because that could have

depleted their particular water supply. Again, there are no regulations

to deal with that at all.

So certainly it seems to me that we need to have some protection for

our groundwater, and that it should be brought in now. I would like to

see some changes in our existing Water Act relative to surface water. I

recognize that there is a

section in that act which has never been

proclaimed that would bring groundwater under that particular act. But

because groundwater is so different from surface water, and the

controls needed to regulate it are so different from granting a licence

on a spring or allowing so many CFS of water to be taken from a stream,

I believe there should be separate legislation. That's one reason why I

believe there should be separate legislation.

The other reason is that the Water Act, as it is presently

constituted, is not functioning in the way that I believe would be in

the best interests of British Columbia's future generations. We do have

a lot of conflict and, as I said earlier, a lot of

[ Page 7096 ]

misuse and spoilage of our water, and we are not

really looking at any long-term plan. There have been suggestions. I

think the province has been divided into seven or eight watershed areas

which, as major regional areas for surface water, could be controlled;

but that's not happening under the existing Water Act. Therefore, to

simply invoke the clause that's in there relative to groundwater would

not, in my opinion, be sufficient means to regulate the requirements

over groundwater. This particular bill attempts to do that in a fairly

detailed way.

I might say that a major portion of this bill is patterned on the

basis of recommendations from the B.C. welldrillers society, which is

also concerned. They feel that while they can police the members of

their society to a degree — and most of them are very responsible —

there are drillers who are not as responsible and are misusing their

drilling opportunities. I know they're supposed to register all wells,

but that, again, is not necessarily being done. Certainly we need some

strong legislation that would protect that very valuable resource. We

do not know how much longer we can depend on our surface water, how

much longer there will be sufficient surface water, how much longer it

will be sufficiently clean for drinking purposes.

The other thing is that through our drilling facilities, we could

well be polluting our groundwater by puncturing the natural protection

that existed there prior to our starting to use it, and if we do that

we are in serious trouble. Without water we are without anything. It is

one of our most valuable assets here in British Columbia, and should be

protected.

I therefore move second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an issue

which obviously is of some importance. The value of water can't be

overstated. As the member has pointed out, there is a tremendous amount

of dependency on groundwater in the province, in various areas. So I am

not suggesting for a moment that the matter is not one of most serious

import. However, Mr. Speaker, technically I would suggest that the bill

is out of order, in that it imposes an obligation on the Crown, and

would ask you to consider that point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is correct, hon. members.

The bill before us does offend standing orders 66 and 67: no impost

unless recommended by a message from the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Standing order 67. I so rule.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill M206, Municipal Act Review Committee Act.

MUNICIPAL ACT REVIEW COMMITTEE ACT

MR. BLENCOE: If I may, I would like to move second reading of M206 at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have introduced this piece of legislation

is to try to standardize in legislation some formality about reviewing

the Municipal Act on a regular basis. At times there is concern from

municipalities that we review the Municipal Act on an ad hoc basis. I

think it would be useful for those municipalities that are guided by

the Municipal Act — that are, I suppose, a child of the provincial

government to some degree, and therefore have to be guided by such an

act — to know that there is a guaranteed time for review of that

particular act. I have suggested in my bill that at least once every

four years a review committee should be established to report on all

matters concerning the Municipal Act and regulations made thereunder.

That committee would recommend to the minister, obviously, and to the

Legislature, in a democratic, cooperative fashion, changes to the

Municipal Act.

I have suggested, and I think in a rather unique way, because we are

in a very unique relationship with municipal government — that is,

provincial government and municipal government — that there should be a

wide spectrum of representation on that review committee. I have

suggested that the membership should be made up of the president of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and, to recognize the regional

distinctions of this province, one nominee from each of the North

Central Municipal Association, the Association of the Kootenay and

Boundary Municipalities, The Association of Vancouver Island

Municipalities, the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association and

the Lower Mainland Municipal Association.

I have also suggested, within the framework of cooperation between

both sides of the Legislature, that there be a nominee from the

government caucus, and I would presume that would obviously be the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and one nominee from the caucus of the

official opposition, which I presume would be the debate leader for

municipal affairs.

It's my belief, having worked in local government for a number of

years, that it's time we established a further special relationship in

terms of the working of this Legislature and how we deal with

municipalities. I believe that such a mechanism as I have suggested

today, to review the primary guidebook for local government on a

regular basis, will indicate to local government that this Legislature

— this level of government — is deeply aware of and believes in local

government, and that we want to, with them in a cooperative framework,

achieve consensus on issues that are concerning local government.

Now I have suggested in the act that currently we only look at the

Municipal Act — narrowed it to that. There have been suggestions that

we should go beyond the Municipal Act in terms of concerns that arise

between the provincial government and municipal governments. I think

that might be a useful avenue to pursue, but at the moment I am

suggesting that we have a place in our routine for going over with

local government areas of concern in the Municipal Act. Very often,

changes are made in laws or in policies or in that act regarding

municipalities that sometimes come as a great surprise, sometimes a

great shock, and sometimes those changes are confrontational and both

sides get their backs up against the wall, and we get into

confrontational politics, which doesn't resolve anything in the long

term.

What I'm suggesting here is a mechanism where we can work in true

partnership between this level of government and local government to

achieve solutions and resolutions to their problems vis-à-vis the

Municipal Act. In terms of the regional approach that I have suggested,

I think it recognizes that too often we in Victoria and in the lower

mainland forget those up-country jurisdictions, those areas in the

north and in the central area, and we do not ask for their

participation. We do not ask for their ideas on developing concepts and

changes for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7097 ]

So I hope that this review committee act will pass, that we will

appoint a committee consisting of at least eight members, and at least

every four years that committee will make a review in consultation with

the representatives of local government across this province to

indicate to local government that we are serious about their concerns,

that we believe there is a unique and traditional partnership between

the provincial government and local government, and that we want to

broaden that partnership, so that together those two levels of

government can become a dynamic force for all sorts of things to happen

in the province of British Columbia.

[11:45]

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about today is job

creation. I know, and I have to share that that Municipal Act limits

local government. For instance, being able to create community

development corporations so a municipality could get involved in

setting up community venture corporations is not currently allowed

under the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker.

Those kinds of corporations could create hundreds of jobs in various

municipalities if those things were changed in the act. I believe we

have to discuss innovations and creative ways to free up that act to

allow local governments to get involved in job creation and in

strategies for the future.

I believe that this act will start that process, that we can work in

true harmony, in true partnership and create new ways that we can have

real partnership with local government. I think the partnership program

we have in British Columbia is a start. We supported it on this side.

To give it some due, it's a start. I'll be fair. It's a start, but I

think there are so many other things that can be done. I have suggested

many of them in this Legislature.

For instance, it could very well be that the Municipal Act Review

Committee could take a look at the problems involved in not being able

to get infrastructure rebuilding going in the province of British

Columbia, to get thousands of jobs created in British Columbia. Through

this committee, in harmony, in cooperation and developing a framework

for the future, we could develop the most dynamic partnership this

province has ever seen between the municipalities and senior government.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Legislature will support this act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the minister, I'll have to have a motion, hon. member. Just move second reading.

MR. BLENCOE: I moved second reading when I started.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you? I'm sorry. Now it is really done. Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again we have had the opportunity of

hearing the words of the member for Victoria with respect to the needs

and requirements and the advantages of cooperation and partnership

between different levels of government and the need to review, consider

and listen to those who are involved in the application of municipal

bylaws and the functions of municipalities.

The ideas offered should be considered as part of future action by

any government with respect to the need to work together to assist the

citizens of the province at different levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, Bill M206, Municipal Act Review Committee Act, however,

imposes an obligation on the Crown, and I believe it is therefore out

of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister's comments are correct. Payment

is mentioned in the bill, and an obligation on another ministry is

mentioned, so the bill would fail under standing order 66.

Introduction of Bills

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND

BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY AMALGAMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute

of Technology Amalgamation Act.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In moving first reading, I would like to

make a few short comments. Bill 59, which was introduced in June of

this year, has now been circulated widely among all of the people who

are directly affected: the students, the student societies, the board

members, the executive officers, the faculty and the support staff. The

bill was reviewed in some detail, and a number of items were advanced,

all of which had a great deal of merit.

The bill makes reference to the merger of BCIT and PVI, and I can

tell the House that this particular merger has met with excellent

support from all who are actively involved with the new BCIT. The new

bill contains additional language to make it parallel with some of the

language which was found in the College and Institute Act. There was

also the matter of pensions that had to be resolved. There is an option

available to the support staff and the faculty to retain their access

to the municipal pension fund which they are members of or to move into

the college pension legislation.

There is one additional issue involving negotiation with the

faculty, and that matter is covered. They are now in exactly the same

position as all faculty in all colleges in British Columbia.

The amalgamation has had, I think, a very desirable effect. All

publications coming from the students and the faculty indicate

considerable support for what has occurred. I can mention to the House

now, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of reorganization there will be

additional moneys available through savings.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire

to stop the minister in full flight, but the purpose of the

introduction, when we altered the rules, was not for a member or anyone

else to indulge in a second reading debate to justify the bill or

whatever. It's to say briefly what's in the bill, not how happy

everybody is with amalgamation. It sounds a little bit

self-congratulatory and all the rest of it. I don't mind listening to

those little speeches on second reading, but it's definitely out of

place here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, first of all the time has

expired. Practice recommendation number 5 states: "...a statement not

to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill

to explain its purpose." I

[ Page 7098 ]

feel that that was happening, and I'm sorry the member is offended, but....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has not been recognized yet.

Now we've dispensed with the introductory statement, and I recognize the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59 is on, and I would

ask leave to move that the order for second reading of Bill 59 be

discharged in view of the replacement bill that has just been

introduced.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, before we grant this

unanimously, I would like to know the significance of what the minister

has just suggested. Does that mean that we could proceed to second

reading of the bill immediately? Because the other bill had had first

reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. member, Bill 59, by House agreement, has been discharged. It no longer exists.

MR. ROSE: That's good, because I wouldn't suspect the minister would do this, but I didn't want anybody to slip one past me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. members, the message that has come

to the House is simply a message, and second reading cannot proceed at

this stage unless we have unanimous consent, but I don't think that

will apply.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M207.

WOMEN'S CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY ACT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill M207 I am hoping

that the government will recognize this bill for what it is: a plea for assistance

to people who are doing everything possible to assist themselves. One of the

phenomena of the really bad economic times that we're going through and

the high unemployment is that women everywhere are taking the initiative and

are now creating employment for themselves. They're entering into the job

market not as employees but as initiators and owners of small business enterprises.

One of the other phenomena is that for the most part they're having much

greater success than other entrepreneurs in this area. The Canada statistics

show that women take a longer time to actually get their business started, that

they do much more research before actually launching the business enterprise,

and as a result of that they're having far greater success in these businesses

once they're on the track. The problem, however, that they still run into

is in having access to financing. Lending institutions, banks, trust companies

and even the government itself are still reluctant to take women seriously as

borrowers and to permit them to have the sums of money which they need in many

instances to get their enterprises off the ground.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All this legislation calls for, Mr. Speaker, is that the government

should affirm its commitment to assisting women in these endeavours and

to establish a program which would assist women in terms of counselling

and advice and in any other way possible to have access to the

financing which they must have in order to get into the job market and

get into the business of career development and job creation.

What women are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we recognize that the

statistics would show that most of the poor people in this country are

women and their children, and that statistic is not going to be changed

by increased welfare payments or even by increased welfare programs.

Women's poverty is an economic issue and should be addressed in

economic terms. What women are also saying is that we don't want to be

handed on a platter the resolution to this problem, that we're quite

capable of dealing with it ourselves as long as our access to financing

is not blocked.

Despite the fact that women have been fighting this issue since the

royal commission report was tabled in the federal House in 1970 or

since the royal commission itself was initiated in 1967, access to

funding is still a problem. There is still a great deal of reluctance

on the part of lending institutions to give women the kind of money

that they need to run the very successful businesses which they do run.

Before the minister rises to his feet to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that in fact one

section of the bill does place an impost on the Crown,

I want to say that I know that it does and that if in fact the

government were willing to accept this piece of legislation, I would be

very happy to have that

section of the bill deleted, if the government

wanted to substitute some other way of dealing and getting around the

fact that the bill will be ruled out of order because it calls upon the

Crown for an impost.

Women are really doing such a good job of fighting the recession.

Women are doing such a good job of trying to turn the economy around,

such a good job of very carefully starting businesses in all sorts of

areas where a need has always existed but which has never been met

before, and being successful at it, that I think women really deserve

all the assistance they can get in the way of counselling and advice,

as well as in having the barriers to funding removed. And if the

government can do this on their behalf, I think that would be a major

step in the right direction, because that would serve to unleash the

potential which women have to take their full place in the economic

structure of our society. For that reason I hope the government will

accept this piece of legislation.

[12:00]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the.... I believe the member did move second reading at the introduction?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I did.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you.

[ Page

7099 ]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, the need for women's career

employment opportunity programs, counselling, opportunities,

assistance, cooperation — any word that would describe a willingness to

assist the female half of our society, not because of incompetence or

for negative reasons but for positive reasons — is certainly worthy of

all our attention. I believe that one of the great resources we have in

our society is the tremendous potential of and contribution by the

female members of our society, which heretofore has not always been

recognized for a number of reasons, one of which was an attitude that

it was simply not the thing to do, and in some instances not the thing

to encourage. I believe that's an attitude which has been traditionally

and historically shared by many women as well as men, an attitude which

today does not seem to be acceptable in our society, and one which

would require demonstrative action to overcome some of the negative

impacts of the past. So I can certainly relate to what the member has

been saying.

Part of the Labour ministry is responsible for women's programs, and

the debate which took place today will certainly be brought to the

minister's attention. However, I must point out that, in my opinion,

sections 2 and 5 impose an obligation on the Crown, and I believe the

bill is not in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is quite correct. Pursuant to standing order 66, the Chair so rules.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, continuing with public bills in the hands

of private members, and by an understanding, I call Bill M210.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MS. BROWN: I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

This bill simply calls on the government to amend the Adoption Act in

order to establish under the Ministry of Human Resources an adoption

information registry for adult adoptees and their natural parents. This

is just to facilitate discussion around the issue. What we're saying is

that people who have reached the age of majority in this province —

that is, who are over 19 — and who were adopted children but are now

adopted adults, should have the opportunity, if the natural parents

share this concern, to have contact with their natural parents just to

make contact after all those years. This adoption information registry

already exists in seven other provinces — as a matter of fact, eight

other provinces, because in July of this year Alberta became the eighth

province to put into place such an adoption registry.

I am stressing the word "adult," Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the

controversy and a lot of the insecurity around the whole idea of an

adoption registry has to do with children and the feeling of adopting

parents that they would be insecure if an adopted child at any time,

either teenage or younger, could then demand to have access to his or

her natural parent, or if a natural parent, at any time during that

child's life, could demand to find out where the child was located and

try to institute some kind of contact with that child. So this bill

does not allow that kind of access to anyone under the age of 19. It is

for adult adoptees only.

Secondly, no one person can initiate action. What the adoption registry does

is say that a natural parent can file with the adoption registry an interest

to make contact with her child if, in fact, the child is interested in making

contact with her once that child reaches the age of majority or older.

However, if that child at age 19 or older does not register with the

registry an interest to make contact with the natural mother, no

contact can be made, and vice versa. In other words, the adoptee can

register with the registry, but if the natural mother doesn't register,

no contact will be made.

Nor will the government go out and search on behalf either of a

natural mother or an adoptee for the other's kin. This is simply a

voluntary registry which would exist, which could be used by both or

either of the parties involved and which would not impose any

compulsion at all on either party at any time to respond to it.

I want to bring to your attention that since 1930 in Scotland such a

register has existed, but in fact they have found that only 2 percent

of adopted children when they reach the age of majority have sought to

avail themselves of that registry. I discovered that other countries

deal with it differently. Earlier this spring I was in the Scandinavian

countries, and there I discovered that in Norway and in Sweden and

indeed in Denmark when a child was placed for adoption it was

understood and explained to the natural mother that when that child

reached the age of 19, that child had a right to know who its natural

mother was, and the natural mother, in fact, would not be able to

refuse to give that information.

This registry doesn't go that far. This registry respects the right

of the natural mother never to be contacted by the child if the natural

mother doesn't want that to occur. It also respects the right of the

child never to be contacted by the mother if that child does not ever

want to be contacted, even when that child becomes an adult.

This hopefully is just a first step in the amending of the adoption

laws to bring them more into line with the other provinces, because, as

I said, with Alberta coming onstream with such a registry in July of

this year we now have eight provinces in Canada which have such a

registry. I am hoping that the government will accept this, especially

since — as I have said before and I cannot repeat too often — it will

only apply to adult adoptees and will not at all apply to children. I

move second reading.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bill,

Adoption Amendment Act, 1985, I would think one of the most difficult

situations an individual could find themselves in would be to have no

possible way to determine their origins despite having been advised or

finding out that they were under the care of adopting parents. I would

think the frustration of individuals not to be able to determine what

their origins were must be one of the great frustrations of anyone.

We recognize the difficulties associated with adoptions, the natural

concerns and fears of the two sets of parents — for want of a better

term; the natural parents and adopting parents, or the natural mother

and adopting parents, or whatever the combination may be — the fears

that in such cases later on in life your own personal life may receive

an intrusion by someone you have learned emotionally not to be

associated with anymore, and there is a legitimate fear by the natural

parent. There is also a legitimate fear or concern by the adopting

parents, who feel that perhaps at some point later in life they somehow

will lose the association with that child should the child be able to

meet and develop a relationship with the natural parent.

Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to even attempt to consider

speaking on behalf of so many people, because obviously their own

attitude and emotion would be different

[ Page 7100 ]

in each case. But I listened to the member and her

comments, and personally I would feel very strongly with respect to

that child particularly, and that child's desire to discover its roots.

I appreciate that other provinces and jurisdictions have taken on the

question and have developed registers, in different formats, but

nonetheless basically for the same idea. I would think — and I can only

say I would think, because I'm not responsible for this act — that as

we mentioned earlier today about the acupuncturists, perhaps in the

not-too-distant future there may be such action taken to assist. That's

only a guess on my part.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid Bill M210, Amendment to Adoption Act,

R.S.B.C., 1979, c.4, appears to be out of order in that it imposes an

obligation on the Crown involving the expenditure of public funds. I

would ask for your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has reviewed Bill M210 and observes

that it does impose an obligation on the Crown, and accordingly rules

that the bill is out of order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, some of the members are not

present in the chamber today. I'm not criticizing them, but the various

bills stand in their name, and unless there are objections by members

present, we may not necessarily follow the precise list in numerical

order. For a very specific reason I would like to call Bill M211 — that

is, the Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 2) —

although the member is not here. Unless I'm in trouble, I would like to

move second reading. Am I able to do so?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister may move an order on behalf of another minister, but not in the case of a private bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Okay, no problem. That's fine, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to point out that had I been able to move second reading on

behalf of the member I would have done so, and then have pointed out to

you that the bill appears to be out of order. Nonetheless....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would think,

if the House Leader called the bill and no one stood to move second

reading, it would fall off the order paper in very fast order. If he

wants to do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Possibly, with leave....

[12:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the information.

I would call Bill M212, Limitation Act Amendment Act, 1985.

LIMITATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Bill M212 because I feel that

we should be looking at fair play for a particular profession in this

province. I don't imagine there are any members of this Legislature who

haven't received missives from the dental college of British Columbia.

The dentists find themselves with a limitation of liability for thirty

years, while their colleagues across the hall, the medical profession,

have a liability limitation for six years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's always a possibility. My colleague says:

"Bring the medical practitioners up to 30." The big problem, of course,

with a 30-year limitation of liability....

What we're talking about here is where a person can be sued for

malpractice up to a time limit, and that time limit for dentists is 30

years. The time limit for a doctor is six years. The problem, of course

— and the dentists will be quick to tell you — is that they've got to

keep their files for 30 years,

whereas the doctors only have to keep

theirs for six. I recognize that one of the reasons the doctors have a

rather favoured situation here is because the hospitals are mostly

government run, and the government didn't want to be keeping files for

a zillion years. The limitation for hospitals was six years, so to put

the doctors in line with the hospitals, they also gained the six-year

limitation. For two professions that are so parallel to have such a

disparity of limitation, it strikes me that something should be done

about that in short order to put this question into a perspective that

would be fair.

It's not fair that doctors should have to retain all their files for

a six-year period, and that dentists have to do it for thirty. There is

not that much dissimilar in the practices. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that

the government could very easily amend the Limitation Act — if they

won't permit me to do so — or the government could very easily accept

this bill today, which does it all.

Mr. Speaker, it's not very often the practice of this Legislature to

accept private members' bills, but when one is so logical as this, no

one could vote against it. No one? I've noticed nods all over the

place. No one could vote against it, because it's fair. I would

therefore suggest that the House Leader get up and agree to vote for

this to become law, because it's logical, it's fair and it's practical.

Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the closing statement by the

member for New Westminster is quite an imposing argument for carrying

on — that is, that it's logical, practical, fair and so on. He could be

correct. We're dealing with a situation in our society where one group

of practitioners is required to remain available for action for a long

period of time,

whereas another group of similar practice is given the

opportunity of a much shorter period of time to be in the same

position. The members would be well aware of the need for the period of

time for actions to be started with respect to the secondary results of

surgery, be it dental, medical or any form of practice.

Thirty years against six or seven years seems to be inconsistent. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there could be an argument. Is the

lesser the correct time or is the greater the correct time? It does

seem to be difficult to argue that that range is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I leave that type of heady philosophical decision to

our wise and honourable Attorney-General, who would be responsible for

government action on such

an act. Therefore I would move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page

7101 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M215.

VANCOUVER AND COWICHAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY ACT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I notice in the rules that I have 40

minutes to present my arguments. I don't see how I can do that, since

it's now 12:25, so I'll try to confine my remarks to about five or six

or seven minutes, provided I can cover it. This speech that I have is

elastic: it can go five minutes or it can go 40 minutes. It is,

nonetheless, serious.

Mr. Speaker, when I presented this bill as a private member's bill

last spring, I thought it would only be a matter of time until the

revenge and the punitiveness applied to the Vancouver School Board and

the Cowichan School Board by the Minister of Education would have been

removed. I thought that they would have had their slap on the wrist,

and then democracy, once again, would have been permitted to prevail in

the province of British Columbia. But I was wrong. Even Cowichan, which

under normal circumstances would have had an election on November 16,

was forbidden to hold that election. This is the kind of behaviour that

is much more common in developing countries under military

dictatorships. We've got countries like Peru that abolished

municipalities; we've got developing countries, like British Columbia,

that have abolished two school districts and put official trustees in

their place. Enlightened people find that offensive and revolting and

unacceptable, and so do I as one of the enlightened people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"Heinrich Adamant," it says, "No Trustee Elections." We

should ask ourselves why no trustee elections. After all, since budget time

we've had, in effect, a military dictator in the form of an official trustee

imposed on two school districts of our province. You'd think nine months

of this would have been enough. Why wasn't there an election in Duncan,

if not Vancouver? I have my own suspicions. My suspicions are these: that had

there been a trustee election in Vancouver, or had there been permitted a trustee

election in Duncan, those same trustees that opposed the minister's budget

policies would have been returned overwhelmingly. So what that would have meant

was, in effect, a referendum on the educational policies of this minister.

Now this minister was in here a little while ago, jaunting around

introducing some new bill and trying to do his own promos,

self-congratulatory as usual, and then he whipped out to the TV

cameras. Where is he now, when this very, very serious subject is being

debated? How do I know? He's probably writing more press releases; but

he's not here, and he should be here to answer these charges and these

questions. We are told that these two boards were removed because they

broke the law. Well, if they did, it's because they were in a catch-22

situation. They had taken an oath or signed an agreement upon assuming

office that they would provide for the educational needs and the

shelter of the students of their particular districts. They were

elected, and they took what was in effect an oath to provide those

things.

If in their own consciences they felt that they couldn't, because of

the imposition of budget limitations by the Minister of Education, then

what choice did they have? They either had the choice of defying the

law, or they had the choice — here he is — of going back, reversing

themselves on their oath of office to provide for decent quality

education. So some of them broke the law, an oppressive law. Does that

make them criminals? No, because they weren't charged or sent to court

or anything like that. That doesn't make them criminals. It might even

make them heroes. Anyway, I've heard a lot about defying the law

lately. We had a court case that came down yesterday that indicated

that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), with his directive on

school staffing policy, was guilty of providing a directive that was

contrary to the law. We had a court case yesterday, and I'll go into

it, on that very subject.

Anyway, there are times and conditions when the defiance of a law

may be a noble act. There are some pretty good examples — perhaps

overblown, overdrawn. I was thinking of people like Jesus Christ, who

defied laws; George Washington defied a few; Mahatma Gandhi defied

others. Who are they now and where are they? They are among the most

celebrated people in history, because they had the courage to defy bad

laws.

The school district trustees in Cowichan and Vancouver felt so

strongly about their oath, their obligation upon taking office, that

they were forced to defy the strangulation of the autonomy of elected

members, and they took the consequences. How were they different, Mr.

Speaker, than other districts? Thirty-four districts felt exactly the

same way as Duncan and Vancouver. Thirty-four districts throughout the

province said, in effect: "We cannot provide quality education, in all

conscience, to our students with the kind of budget restrictions

imposed on us by that great central government czar in the Ministry of

Education. We can't possibly provide that." So they filed what were

called "needs" or "noncompliance" budgets. Vancouver, Cowichan, Duncan,

Burnaby and Coquitlam were among those who did that, plus 30 others.

Because of browbeating, because of bending the rules one way or the

other, where they found unused funds in Burnaby, and bribery in

Coquitlam in the case of finding further funds, finally the last two,

except for Vancouver and Cowichan, knuckled under. They came around to

the minister's view. But 34 boards felt precisely the same way as

Vancouver and Cowichan. Those boards who felt that way, once they came

along, were left to administer the budgets. Even though they didn't

agree with them, they were left to administer the budgets. Not so

Vancouver and Cowichan. They could have been left there to administer a

budget they didn't believe in, just like the 30 others. So what do we

get as a result of that? What we got was the imposition of an official

trustee. And what did the official trustee find out when he went to

Vancouver? He found out that he couldn't run the schools on the budget

either.

[12:30]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: "Stables' View Backs Ex-trustees." Yes, he found

lots of money, the member says. He found lots of money, all right, by

taking capital surpluses and squandering them on operations. That's

what he found.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there will be ample opportunity during this debate for other

[ Page 7102 ]

members to take their place in debate and reply to the member's statement. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think that would be really in defiance of

the agreement, Mr. Speaker, if they take their place in debate, because

I was just going to finish this up. I didn't want to start fighting

here now.

I am reading from that estimable journal, the Vancouver Sun , May 16, 1985: "A letter obtained by the Sun

reveals that Allan Stables has now reached the same conclusion as the

fired Vancouver school board he was appointed to replace — a $7 million

budget cut would result in unacceptable layoffs." That's what Mr.

Stables said.

From the same article, here is what former NPA — notice, not COPE —

alderman, Ken Denike, had to say on the same subject. He said he asked

Heinrich at the meeting for permission to use the funds, the same funds

that Stables was permitted to use. "'The minister said he was

listening,' Denike said, but failed to grant permission. Denike said he

was later told by ministry officials present at the meeting with

Heinrich that the funds could only be used for severance pay and early

retirement incentives." What were they used for, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell

you what they were used for. They were used to provide funding, the

same kind of funding refused the duly elected trustees, and there is no

way out of that.

Here is something else that has happened. Here is the same Mr.

Stables, the official trustee, on Sunday, November 5, asking for $1.4

million extra. Why? Because there was some growth in the district,

because there were increments granted, because of a number of other

things that even his sellout of public property of the schools couldn't

cover up. That's what happened, and there is no question about that.

You don't have to take my word for it. I don't think you would anyway,

but people feel strongly about this. They're outraged by it. The

Cowichan people are in court over the matter. The skirts of this

government and this minister are far from clean and sanitary on this

issue, far from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no one up there.

MR. ROSE: Oh, yes, he's up there. No, I was looking for divine guidance; I wasn't looking for the press gallery.

Mr. Speaker, on this very subject, only yesterday the estimable

Judge Anderson had this to say in a ruling on the Minister of Finance

directives. This is what he had to say just in general of the tone of

justice and democracy and how it has been distorted in this province.

Now I'm sure the minister would respect the opinion of the learned

judge. He's always talking about laws.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Right, but we're not talking about that particular case right now.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're talking.... Maybe the minister is going to appeal

it, but anyway, this is what Justice Anderson had to say yesterday in dealing

with the Curtis directive, which reached right into the schools and put people

in an impossible position. The Curtis directive reached right into the schools

over the heads of the elected trustees — as a matter of fact, over the head

of the Minister of Education — and determined to do certain things about staffing

which made catch-22 about catch-44, because it's a double catch-22. Not

only couldn't they raise any taxes, they couldn't even bargain with

their teachers, and they couldn't even cut salaries if Mr. Peck granted

an increase. So it forced them into breaking contracts. That's what it did.

They had contractual obligations to provide increments to a certain number of

teachers, and because they were prevented from doing that they were in catch-44.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are also a bit beyond the scope of the bill, which discusses public trustees.

MR. ROSE: Public trustees, according to Mr. Anderson.... He

talks about the Legislature, and I'm not quoting him; I'm paraphrasing.

The Legislature, by enacting the School Act, conferred important

statutory rights on school boards, teachers and the residents in each

school district. These statutory rights include the following:

1. Residents of each district were given the right to have quality

education and educational policy determined by locally elected

trustees, according to Judge Anderson.

2. School boards were given extensive powers to determine the

quality of education, educational policy in the respective school

districts. These powers include the power to determine the extent of

teacher layoffs and to fix teacher salaries in accordance with the

collective bargaining process outlined in the School Act.

Talk about obeying the law!

3. Teachers were given the right to have their salaries determined

by collective bargaining and the arbitration process outlined in the

School Act. In the absence of express language, it will not be presumed

that the Legislature intended to abrogate existing statutory rights by

the nature described above.

So much for Mr. Curtis's directive.

Likewise, if the Legislature is desirous of permitting Treasury

Board to abrogate or impair collective bargaining arbitration processes

established by the School Act, it must do so in express terms. In other

words, bring in some legal machinery. This isn't some wild-eyed

socialist making these charges, Mr. Speaker; it is a learned judge. It

isn't a steel-belted radical of the far left; it is a learned judge.

Other people have had some thoughts on it, such as Dr Norman

Robinson. Here's the report of the school dissolution committee. He

looked into this. It's very difficult, I know, to get somebody who is

objective in this province because, as other people have observed, we

seem to divide on the far right and the far left around here. So the

only people left who might be impartial, I guess, are Liberals. And

they're hard to find, too, because most of them have joined that

coalition of turncoats over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: A growing party.

MR. ROSE: Growing? You're suffering from groaning pains, that's what you're suffering from.

We had an agreement here. If it is agreed — and I think the minister

should be entitled to his rebuttal; I don't deny that.... I think he

should put his gum out. But we did have an agreement here that I

wouldn't....

Interjection.

[ Page 7103 ]

MR. ROSE: You want me to keep on? Just let me deal with one

or two other things. Just about the Robinson report, and the depth and

scope thereof, this is what Dr. Robinson says. I'll just read you the

headlines. I won't go into the details. I could actually, if I wanted

to, indulge myself. I could go into the supporting arguments. But I am

a humane person. I know that the opposition are anxious to get out of

here, and I know that the government's anxious to get out of here, so I

won't burden you for too long. He said that the minister could have

continued to try to reach a compromise with the Vancouver boards. He

might not have been able to do it, but he could have tried. He put the

hammer on them before he was lenient with two other districts. "The

minister could have had legislation passed to ensure that taxes could

be collected." He had other alternatives. He didn't have to, as Dr.

Robinson said, "undertake those draconian...."

MR. REID: That's not what Mayor Harcourt said.

MR. ROSE: If the member would permit, I will read what Mr. Harcourt said.

MR. REID: What did he say?

MR. ROSE: He said:

"Under the Education (Interim) Finance Act municipalities

are required to advance monthly payments to school boards in anticipation of

the adoption of the school board bylaw and the collection of taxes based thereon.

In Vancouver the advances amount to approximately $22 million. I'm advised

that the school board has not passed the bylaw."

All right?

Dr. Robinson said he could have passed the bylaw — he's got the

power — and left the boards where they were. He didn't. He didn't just

want to take away their powers; he wanted to kill COPE. That's what he

wanted — nothing else. "The minister could have sought a mandamus court

order to compel the board to pass the valid...." For those of the great

legally unwashed out there, a mandamus is just the opposite of an

injunction. "Mandamus" means you order somebody to do something,

whereas an injunction means that you order them not to do something. So

what he said was that the minister could have ordered the board to pass

the bylaw. He didn't do that and didn't want to do that. He was out for

blood. He was licking his lips, and he was out for blood. He could have

recommended to the provincial cabinet a grant payable under the board

of education. The minister could have allowed the board to operate a

deficit for the current year.

The minister could have had the provincial cabinet dismiss the board

for a day. That would have been enough. That's all he needed to do.

That wasn't enough, so he did what he did. One of the reasons that that

party over there is so sad in public opinion right now is because of

the actions of that minister right over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been out of the lower mainland.

MR. ROSE: Look, go and talk to your number-cruncher Mr.

Spector. Go and ask him to grind out a few for you, and you will find

the same things that we have. Authoritarian, heartless, cruel,

dispassionate: that's what people think of you.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. ROSE: Why don't you call an election? Why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order, and the member will make reference to the bill.

MR. ROSE: I didn't really mean to provoke them this way, Mr.

Speaker. I'm just a mild, gentle little fellow, and I know I'm spoiling

their lunch, but they've spoiled mine several times. At least I'll have

a lunch; I'm not lined up in a food bank lineup somewhere.

Anyway, again, there are all kinds of things that he went into.

There are all kinds of recommendations that he made. Just let me read a

couple and then I'll quit here. "Restore the boards," says Dr.

Robinson, number one. The government should recognize the value of the

boards, number two. The government should review their method of

financing education and give the boards an opportunity to share some

powers instead of taking everything that they once had away. There

should be some protection, a bill of rights to protect the rights of

local government. How would the minister and this Legislature like it

these duty elected people? We wouldn't like it at all. Finally, he

recommends that the provincial government introduce legislation to

amend

section 51 of the School Act to specify more clearly the

particular circumstances under which the cabinet can appoint an

official trustee to conduct the affairs of the school district. If you

hadn't had those two clauses separately instead of standing together,

that court case would have been quite different.

I'm sorry if I went over my time, but I really needed to get this

off my chest on behalf of all those people who respect democracy.

[12:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the hon. member move second reading?

MR. ROSE: Well, as a matter of fact, I overlooked that, and I

thank you, Mr. Speaker. But if I may do that now.... I got so carried

away, and a lot of people feel that I should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please move second reading.

MR. ROSE: I move second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd like to read the final paragraph of the judgment rendered by the supreme court, and maybe it will put this in perspective.

"The evidence before me clearly shows that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

acted properly and reasonably in ensuring city schools would continue to operate,

and that the city of Vancouver would continue to be able to maintain the integrity

of its municipal financing system."

The Lieutenant-Governor had no other recourse; it's in black and white,

the final line in the judgment:

"The board, as a result of its own intransigence and

its failure to abide by the lawful directive of the Minister of

Education, brought about its own dissolution."

[ Page 7104 ]

Now its interesting that you talk about polls. Your former leader on

CJOR got the former chairman of the school board down to his office,

and what did they talk about, thinking that the city of Vancouver was

not in support of what we had no other choice than to do. So they

decided they would have their poll. Well, the results came in on the

issue. Should there be elections in Vancouver this fall? Well, do you

know, 450 residents in Vancouver said no; 242 said yes. Roughly two to

one. I can tell you, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Weinstein were somewhat

nonplussed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I have pointed out to the member who

introduced the bill, we are discussing the principle of the official

trustee, not polls. Some latitude has been allowed, but if we could get

back to the bill now.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order similar to

that raised by your majesty: that is, what we're calling for here is

not discussing the act of firing the board but the bill to restore

elected boards in Cowichan and Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that's not a point of order. Let's get back to the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With due respect, that's not a point of

order, and with due respect I have the opportunity to respond to

matters he has raised and which have not been challenged by the Chair.

That's why I made reference to the poll.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, they were. Your Chairman asked

the member for Coquitlam-Moody, when he was discussing matters not in

the bill, to confine his remarks to the bill, and the member did. I

have simply asked you to do the same thing. Thank you. Some latitude

was allowed; now back to the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the

comments he raised, which were not challenged. He made reference to a

Mr. Denike. Interestingly enough Mr. Denike, a newly elected member of

the former Vancouver School Board, seems to be somewhat ill-informed.

The information about the utilization of those funds had been available

to that school board since November 1983. Interestingly enough, they

had encroached upon the use of non-shareable for operating to the tune

of about $6 million in 1983 and 1984. They cannot then be heard to say

that they did not have access to those funds.

You talk about Mr. Denike? Two other members as well — Graeme

Waymark and Jonathan Baker — said the board had invited the chaos which

ensued.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would like to make reference to a fact with respect to Burnaby and

Coquitlam. You made reference to bribery. I can't believe it! The fact

is, no additional money was given to either of those boards, and to

make sure of that, I published a letter and made that letter available

to everybody. I sent a copy of that letter to every school board in

British Columbia so that they knew exactly what happened, and there

wasn't one dime thrown in. Not one dime.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg your pardon? The letter was current.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He makes reference to the mayor's letter.

The mayor had that letter personally delivered to me, as well as

everyone else: "Please do something." Something was done. Now he might

be in bed with you people, but the fact is that he's got a duty to the

city of Vancouver, and they were indebted to the sum of $22 million. As

the supreme court decision said, we had no other choice if we were

going to preserve the integrity of the municipal financing system for

the city of Vancouver.

You also made reference to the Robinson report. I would invite you

to see how many people showed up with the self-anointed commissioner: a

gang of sixteen showed. One person showed up and said: "I like the way

it is." Sixteen people, and then look at the people who showed who were

concerned about it: the deposed members of the Vancouver School Board.

The Vancouver School Board deposed members took that position, and they

have taken it all along. They did not have the interest of education;

they were trying to make a political statement. If they want to get

into that level and forget about the education of the kids, that's on

their heads, not ours.

The sale of public property; that particular board had authorized

the sale of property, and so had previous boards. Suddenly they get in

bed and try to prevent a duty elected body or the official trustee from

disposing of property, which they have a right to do. How did you think

they have secured much of the revenue they have? They have the right to

dispose of it.

MR. ROSE: The official trustee?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The official trustee is the board.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items we could go on about here,

but I understand that the clock is.... There is some agreement that my

critic is entitled to 25 minutes and I am entitled to five. I guess you

got that one round.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 4), 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada