1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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, APRIL 24, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

769 ]

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings Presenting Petitions –– 769

Members' Statements

Dual elected office. Mr. R. Fraser –– 769

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Blencoe

Planting of seedlings. Mr. Williams –– 770

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Bruce

Tourism industry. Mr. Crandall –– 772

Ms. Edwards

Future of Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 774

Hon. Mr. Savage

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 775

Mr. Jones –– 778

Resolution 52 – Reduction of nuclear arms. –– 781

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure today to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Harold Mahy from the

constituency of Delta. They are strong supporters of ours, and I'd like

the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today are a large

number of jazz orchestras and bands from around the world in attendance

in Victoria: Banu Gibson from New Orleans; Dixieland Express from

Victoria; Noel Crow from Australia; Paco Gatsby from Guatemala; and the

Scottish Syncopators from Scotland. The grand master of the jazz

festival is our Hon. Claude Richmond. Would the House make them

extremely welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the

hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in the

Legislature assembled.

"The petition of the undersigned members of the

Coquitlam District Teachers' Association opposes the separation of

teachers' professional responsibilities and bargaining rights as

reflected in the proposed College of Teachers, the changes in the

membership, role and duties of principals and vice-principals, and the

retention of wage controls over teacher bargaining for another year.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House withdraw Bills 19 and 20.

The petition is dated April 16, 1987, and is signed by Mike

Lombardi, president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association; Gordon

Wickerson, local association representative, Coquitlam Teachers'

Association; and Debbie Gregg, elementary vice-president, Coquitlam

Teachers' Association. It represents the same sentiments as 800

accompanying letters.

Members' Statements

DUAL ELECTED OFFICE

MR. R. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that everyone

in the House understands what the subject is, perhaps I should go a

little further than to just say "Dual Office." I meant dual elected

office, not dual constituencies, although I would be happy to defend

dual constituencies anytime I was given the opportunity to do so,

because in fact there are a number of good reasons why we should have

them. Nonetheless, we will go on to the holding of dual offices, and I

will tell you later what I would like to do.

We'll start by saying: should we permit elected members of this

assembly to hold two elected offices at one time, and what are the pros

and cons of the arguments that one might put forward to defend or to

attack the holding of two elected offices at the same time? Certainly

if we're going to argue against that kind of legislation, we might say

that it would put an elected person who holds two offices in a position

of conflict, or at least of potential conflict, because the school

board or the council on which he or she serves might in fact be taking

a position contrary to the position of the provincial government.

Before proceeding any further, by the way, I do not wish to cast

aspersions on either side of the House, or on any member of the House

or any previous member of the House who held dual elected offices,

because a number of people have done that. Certainly there are people

who have held MLA jobs and MP jobs at the same time, which of course

you all know is now not possible; you cannot be an MP and an MLA. If

you, as a Member of Parliament, accept an MLA position, your seat in

Parliament is voided instantly, presumably because someone felt you

couldn't do both jobs well.

So we now have arguments that you should be allowed to hold two

offices: if you're on a council and you have access to the Legislative

Assembly — either side of the House — you could present your

petition on behalf of your council more effectively because you know

everybody. You might want to defend it on that basis. Or indeed you

might want to defend it because…. You could say: "If I resign one of my

elected offices, then indeed it will cost the taxpayers of my region

some more money for a by-election." So for the purposes of saving some

cash, depending on what amount you or the candidates might happen to

spend, you might want to say: "Keep the office; just don't vote on

issues that would put you in an apparent conflict-of-interest

circumstance."

I think there are a number of arguments that would point to the fact

that something should be done with respect to the possibility in B.C.

that these conditions remain: that is, that we can hold two elected

offices. One is that I think it's important that elected officials

devote their full time to one elective office rather than part-time to

two. In fact, in certain regions of the province it would be virtually

impossible to be able to commute quickly enough or easily enough to be

able to go to enough council meetings or Legislative Assembly meetings.

So from a physical access point of view, you might not be able to do

both jobs well because you could simply not get there.

It's my opportunity today, in a very few words and a short period of

time, to suggest to you that while other provinces permit it and while

some provinces do not — Ontario does not permit you to be a member of

the provincial parliament and a member of a municipal government —

it's important for British Columbia to move along and to put forward

legislation that does not permit any one person to hold two elected

offices. It is my intention to put forward a private member's bill to

support that submission, and I would expect to hear a lot of support

for this position. The reason I did it in the form of a member's

statement was to get some opinions from all of you so that we can put

it together so it would serve the best interests of all the people.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : In response to the member's statement, although

the subject matter was not restricted to holding dual offices as they apply

the municipal level of government only, I would like to comment briefly.

I am very pleased to hear that the member will be putting forward a

private member's bill, because I think it's worthy of discussion. It's

something that has been vaguely discussed but never really — to the best of my knowledge —

thought through thoroughly in order that we arrive at all of the pros

and cons of the situation. I can speak from personal experience, as I

did hold municipal office and the position of MLA for a very short

period of time after my first election to this

[ Page 770 ]

Legislature. I can understand the concern that has

been expressed by the member. There were occasions, I believe, and

there could be occasions, where you could find yourself in a very

confused position as to where your first priority and interest should

lie.

I'm very pleased that this subject has been brought up today. As far

as my ministry is concerned, it's not something that we have given any

great time or thought to, and I look forward to hearing further debate

on the subject because I think it is worthy of discussion. It would be

interesting to hear opinions from both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker.

[10:15]

MR. BLENCOE : Well, we're extremely pleased to hear that there

is some support for this idea that there are some deep problems with

holding two offices, municipal and provincial. I have certainly stated

a number of times in this House over the years that it is time for some

new rules and regulations to deal with this particular issue. I should

add that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has

included this particular aspect in his conflict-of-interest private

member's bill that is currently on the floor of this House.

Our opinion — and we currently do have some members of the government, I believe, still holding municipal offices — is that

that is inappropriate. It can lead to some real problems of conflict of

interest. I think also that it shows a lack of respect for local

government when a member continues to hold a municipal office. In our

view, those people at the local level are entitled to full

representation. They are entitled to know that that person who has

joined the provincial Legislature doesn't get into positions that have

to support the provincial government of the day and therefore affect

their decision-making at the local level. It might be very difficult

for, for instance, a mayor or an alderman when, say, they are dealing

with forestry issues to be critical of silviculture management. I would

particularly refer to Vancouver Island.

People, I think, want clear rules. They want this laid out, and they

want to know that when someone gets elected to this office, they will

as quickly as possible resign from municipal office. Now I know that

there has to be a reasonable time to resign, but when it stretches to

months — and I believe for some members of this House on the government side it is now six months — I think that is totally inappropriate.

We will, depending on what the bill says, of course . . . . Perhaps,

Mr. Speaker, a good suggestion would be to put this bill to the select

standing committee for discussion by all sides so we could get

something that is supported by both sides of the House and would

reflect the wishes of both parties. We wish it had come from the

minister, but we are pleased that somebody on the other side has at

long last recognized that this is a problem that needs to be dealt

with. The people of British Columbia will be pleased to see that the

holding of both municipal and provincial office is no longer acceptable.

MR. R. FRASER : Just to wrap up, I would like to thank members

opposite for their contribution. I would say specifically that I made a

point of not mentioning that we have people in the House who presently

hold dual elected office, because it has happened on the other side as

well. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition held two offices at one

time.

If you're arguing time-frames — a month, six months, whatever —

we can do that. I would prefer to stay with the impetus of the bill,

which is that we should avoid the possibility, regardless of how long

the period might happen to be. I would also say that we should make

sure it's not a Member of Parliament or an MLA — municipality, school board, parks board, whatever. It should be quick and it should be automatic.

I look forward to debating this with all of you when the moment presents itself.

PLANTING OF SEEDLINGS

MR. WILLIAMS : I hoped that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker) would be here today to carry on a most useful and productive

dialogue, in which we ask oral questions and he gives written answers

after question period. I thought that maybe the statements period might

at least be a time when we could carry on this dialogue with this sixth

Forests minister in as many months almost. Or is it a year?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, what's-his-name.

I raised the question of the trashing of seedlings in the

Prince George area just a few days ago. I pointed out that a memo from

the regional district manager for Prince George indicated that the

likely option was the trashing of 10 million seedlings in the Prince

George area because of lack of funding. He said that there were

basically two options he faced because of increases in costs and

inadequate budget. He said that he held over these seedlings and/or

trashed them or stole from other jobs that are very important in terms

of tending existing plantations in the Prince George area: that is,

site preparation, brushing, weeding and surveys. He said that those

activities, brushing, weeding and that sort of thing, were absolutely

necessary to the survival of the plantations that were already in

place: that is, seedlings that had been planted in previous years. It's

as any farmer would know: once you've planted the crop, that's barely

the beginning. The tending is the important job. We tend not to do the

tending in our tree-farming in this province, unlike our agriculture.

We wouldn't have much of an agriculture industry if we handled it like

we handled trees. It's also necessary to do site preparation for trees

to be planted in 1988.

Basically what the chief forester for the Prince George region was

saying was: "Those are our options. Either we don't look after what we

planted and we don't prepare for what we're going to plant next year,

or we trash the seedlings." Clearly, in terms of a year of hard

choices, that was the direction he was going to move in: trashing the

seedlings. He said that the bottom line under point 1 — that is, trashing seedlings —

is really no different, in a sense, because nature will kill those

seedlings if we don't look after them once they're out there in the

bush.

So it would be no different, if we burned the ones we've got now,

than if we don't look after the ones that are in the ground or prepare

for the ones we want to plant next year. In addition, you'd have the

losses in terms of your investment in the planting of the previous year

and the preparation for next year. Clearly, if you don't trash the

seedlings, you're writing off your investment — or much of it — in the previous year's planting. So the options are pretty clear in terms of a rational public policy.

[ Page 771 ]

The minister was asked the question. He then made some unfortunate

comments out in the hallway about not responding to "that sucker over

there." We'll just dismiss that. I mean, if that's the kind of language

that is acceptable in Skeena, so be it. But we'll ask the folks in

Skeena about that down the road a mile or two.

AN HON. MEMBER : A thousand days from now.

MR. WILLIAMS : A thousand days from now.

But in the end, the chief forester for the Prince George region said

there's really only one solution, and that's additional funds. It's

really the only option if they're even going to practise bare-bones

silviculture in the Prince George region, as he said.

Just in this last month, the northern division of the Council of

Forest Industries has come out with a look at the Prince George region.

They point out that 62 percent of our problems in terms of not

satisfactorily restocked land in British Columbia are in the Prince

George region. A big chunk of that is the heritage, under Mr.

Williston, of the special sale area around the city of Prince George,

where it was agreed that no forestry would be practised in the

immediate environs of Prince George, that there wouldn't be

reforestation, that they would essentially mine the forest in hundreds

of thousands of acres. That's been the history for 20 years.

We are now reaping the whirlwind in terms of that mining of the

forest around Prince George. It now has 62 percent of our NSR problems

in British Columbia, but it only gets 30 percent of the money. No

wonder the official, the chief forester for Prince George, is saying:

"The only option for me is more money in the circumstances that I face

in this region." Even under the budget and even with the trashing of

the seedlings, only 11 percent of the plantations would be properly

looked after in the Prince George region. The COFI people say it should

be at a level of 50 to 75 percent. What that chief forester up there is

going to have to do now is reduce that 11 percent number in order to

keep those seedlings. That's the miserable dilemma he's put in.

The new minister in his written statement — because he isn't willing to get into debate in the House here —

has said that all of the 200 million seedlings currently available in

the province will be planted. He doesn't say when. We may have giant

Douglas firs growing in the greenhouses of British Columbia before they

ever get planted. That's why we need a bit of debate, so we could

discuss these options in a careful and rational way rather than have

one-sentence written answers.

We had hoped, and we've had evidence from this new administration — this partly new, partly recycled administration —

that there was a different era in this House, and in some ways we've

seen it in aspects of the operations of the Legislature per se, which

we on this side are most encouraged by. But when we get evidence like

this from the Minister of Forests, we think it's the bad old days

again. We would like a positive, cooperative dialogue on this important

question of reforestation and silviculture. We haven't got it. Mr.

Williston, who was a longtime minister in a former administration, said

that there really had only been two hands-on ministers in terms of

operating the ministry.

MR. SPEAKER : Your time is up.

MR. WILLIAMS : We hope for greater cooperation. I'm sure the House Leader might provide it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'd like to speak not as a member of cabinet but as the MLA for Prince George South in response to . . . .

MR. BLENCOE : Where's the minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The minister is in Terrace today looking

after the business of the ministry. Growing trees and planting

seedlings; Johnny Appleseed and all that sort of stuff.

However, with respect to the member's comments, the minister did

file an answer yesterday following question period, and for the benefit

of those who haven't read the answer — and the benefit of the member who made the previous statement —

I'll repeat the minister's answer. The minister rejects the notion that

the trees will be trashed, and says that 200 million seedlings being

produced for the season for the forests of British Columbia will all be

planted: "My staff are presently reviewing budget allocations for the

Ministry of Forests and Lands, and I can assure you that no trees will

be trashed and they will all be planted." I think that's an adequate

answer.

Further to the member's comment about entering into fulfilling and

meaningful debate about the management of the forests, there is every

opportunity, Mr. Member; they're called the estimates. I'm sure you're

familiar with that process.

MR. WILLIAMS : Always at the end.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Would you like them earlier? We can arrange that. Sure. Okay, I give you that undertaking as House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER : How about Monday'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, it won't be Monday, but there will be

appropriate time. The member states they're always at the end, but of

course it should be remembered that the opposition are allowed to

debate to the fullest extent that they wish. If they wish to continue

debate on the Minister of Forests' estimates, or any other estimates,

they have every opportunity to do so.

However, to the broader question of forestry operations and forestry spending,

I think the record of the government is clear. It's admirable for this year.

Members can simply look at the estimates book, page 118, vote 35, and see that

in the Ministry of Forests and Lands we have gone from $258 million for administration

and support services, forests and lands management, to $267 million for the

fiscal year '87-88. Those numbers are available to all members, and I would

commend them to them. It indicates that British Columbia does have a sincere

and abiding interest in proper forest management and proper regeneration and

silviculture, and that record stands for itself.

Further, there was some criticism earlier when a previous minister

indicated that maybe not every seedling should be planted. That

position of the minister was in fact endorsed by the UBC faculty of

forests, who indicated that the minister is right; we just can't throw

seedlings into the ground. That's not the total answer to proper forest

management. More

[ Page 772 ]

research must be done. Seedlings in themselves are

not the total answer, and I'm sure the member who has been a minister

is aware of that. Programs such as cut and squirt, thinning and

spacing, proper herbicides and pesticides, are all appropriate. I think

all members should realize that just planting a seedling in the ground

is not the total answer to proper forest management.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I reject the claim of the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). I think our record is admirable. The

Prince George statement has been answered adequately — abundantly and appropriately — by the Minister of Forests, and I'll pass this debate on to another member.

[10:30]

MR. BRUCE : Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the

discussion take place in respect to the planting of seedlings and, of

course, the other aspect that was brought up, the brushing and weeding.

All too often when we talk about forestry practices in British Columbia

and Canada, the general connotation is replanting, reforestation. But

the major aspect that we need to do much more on throughout B.C. and

throughout the rest of Canada is indeed the brushing and weeding,

similar to how one looks after their carrot patch. We have got to spend

more time and more attention in respect to the brushing and weeding and

other applications that bring our crop up for that free-to-grow

situation.

We have found time and time again throughout the province that

people do not understand the difference between the reforestation

method of simply planting seedlings in the ground and the method of

tending the garden afterwards. I think it's important that this House

understand that there is a significant difference. As important as it

is to plant the seedlings in the ground, it is equally as important –

or perhaps even more so – that we make sure that those little seedlings

are brought to the stage where they're free to grow. That of course is

when the crop really becomes a full-fledged economic unit.

MR. WILLIAMS : Welcome aboard, members of the Socred back

bench. But don't you realize what your minister said? He addressed only

the seedling question — only the planting question. He understood

the emotional question of trashing 10 million seedlings out there with

the broad body politic in British Columbia, so he said they won't be

trashed. As a result, he's going to move to a worse option: that is, to

not tend, not look after the forests that have already been planted,

not prepare for next year. What kind of farmer would ever have survived

on that kind of basis? He would have been in the poorhouse, hitting the

road. It doesn't work in farming and it doesn't work with tree farming

either. Here we have a new minister, and everybody was kind of happy

that it was at last a professional forester; but lord, I've reluctantly

come to the conclusion that he was out there in the bush too long and

didn't jump when somebody yelled, "Timber," and we've got the result of

some deadwood over there at the moment. I look forward to him

participating in the future.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time

this morning talking about one of British Columbia's most exciting

industries, the tourism industry.

I think it is important in this year after Expo that we recognize

the tremendous impact and benefit to the British Columbia tourism

industry that Expo had. One of the points that I want to dwell on for a

moment is the downturn that many people expected after Expo. I have got

some numbers which I think the House and the people in British Columbia

would be interested in knowing concerning what has happened in this

year after Expo when things were supposed to decline. I want to say

that things have not declined in 1987. Here are a few things of

interest. The border crossings in 1987 to the end of January are up 7

percent over our Expo year of 1986. The traffic . . . .

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL : Border crossings into British Columbia. Traffic in Rogers Pass to the end of February — and that of course is through that wonderful Columbia River riding —

is up 34 percent. Air arrivals into B. C. to the end of February are up

23 percent. Ferry traffic to the end of February is up 14 percent, and

visits to the Provincial Museum right across the street — which is one of the best museums in North America, I might add . . . .

MR. BLENCOE : Whose riding is that in?

MR. CRANDALL : That just happens to be in the riding of

Victoria, but I want to mention that for all but three of the last 37

years it was managed by Social Credit governments.

Revenue to the tourism industry in 1986 was $3.2 billion. We are

very hopeful that in 1987 that will remain at $3 billion, slightly down

but exceedingly more than it would have been without Expo.

I want to talk for a few moments this morning about some of the

positive things that are happening within the ministry, and first of

all I want to speak on the benefits that this ministry is going to

receive from the combination of culture, heritage and sport now being

put into the Ministry of Tourism. That was a decision which has

enhanced the Ministry of Tourism's ability to bring revenue into this

province, and I think that it is important that we recognize the

benefit of that to the industry right across this province.

We now have two objectives, and the objectives are clear. We must

now not only improve revenues but also ensure the growth and vigour of

the cultural heritage and recreation communities, and we will do that.

We are fortunate that the two objectives are not only compatible but

mutually interdependent. A success in one area will spur growth in the

other. The merger of tourism interests with those of culture and

recreation makes good sense.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. CRANDALL : I am impressed that a discussion on the

positive developments in tourism elicits such response from the

opposition, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to highlight some of the major concerns in the Ministry

of Tourism this year. I first of all want to look at the marketing

emphasis and mention how the emphasis this year will capitalize on the

legacy of Expo 86. Using the information gathered from the travel

patterns of visitors to the world's fair, a range of product-specific

offerings have been

[ Page 773 ]

developed, including theme routes, such as the Gold

Rush Trail, adventure vacations and cultural urban experiences. I might

mention that we just saw one of these cultural urban experiences last

night here in the riding of Oak Bay, where the Victoria Dixieland Jazz

Party for 1987 was kicked off by the former Minister of Tourism. They

were welcomed by the present Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in an

extremely successful jazz festival, which has been successful in the

past and will become a landmark festival in Victoria. The major event

happened last night in the riding of Oak Bay. I want the House and the

province to recognize that there will be much benefit from pulling

these three facets together into the Ministry of Tourism. I think it's

also important for the province to know that while we had over 20

million people here at Expo last year, we asked them questions about

what they liked best about British Columbia and why they would come

back. Because of that we've developed these theme products that I know

are going to be of benefit.

Also, the development side of the Ministry of Tourism is going to

have another positive improvement this year and in future years. We are

going to be very careful to make sure that resources, financial and

otherwise, are used to the greatest advantage so that resources

throughout British Columbia can help this industry.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, hon. member, your time is up.

MR. CRANDALL : Let me just conclude by saying . . . .

MR. SPEAKER : Your time is up, Mr. Member for Columbia River. The member for Kootenay.

MS. EDWARDS : It's a real pleasure to be talking on tourism,

which is obviously the ministry of great dignity and delight. Mr.

Crandall has talked about the approach, and I must congratulate him on

expanding the magnificent promotional approach of that ministry and

actually setting out some of the information that comes out in their

promotions so that members of the House might hear it. I'll tell you,

otherwise it just goes around and around. Good for you.

It's my pleasure to hear about how great this expansion in tourism

is going to be, and how greatly it has expanded in various areas. One

thing I think we should be a little bit worried about is the fact that

all these expansions may be impacted on negatively — to use the jargon —

by fees that are coming along. I think the Provincial Museum, having

got going all of a sudden, is going to have fees whacked on it, is it?

I think that's a major problem and something that should be put out

quite a bit before for people to talk about. It looks like it might be.

Expo, of course, brought a lot of people to British Columbia, and

everybody knows that they all said they're coming back. For heaven's

sake, let's hope that they do, because we want them all here.

Two of the things they asked for when they were asked why they would

come back were a clean and safe environment. That fits in partly with

the idea of wilderness tourism and wilderness recreation. According to

the people who are involved in that area, there's also a great increase

in one of the developing parts of the industry, and it's just on the

verge of expanding a whole lot. That kind of thing takes place when you

go to areas like the Charlottes. People who go up there want to see

something that is natural; they don't want water slides in the

Charlottes. I mean, only the otters need water slides in the Charlottes.

There are a lot of other areas in the province that need that kind

of development. I think we're going to have to be very careful to see

that we are working in concert with some of the other ministries. When

we expand the development in the Ministry of Tourism and develop the

visitor industry so that people can come to British Columbia, where

it's clean and it's safe, we have to make sure that we have the park

reserves and wilderness areas. Those are the kinds of things that

people who come to British Columbia in families — 60 percent of them come in groups of three — want to see happening.

Of course we do want to see heritage developed as well, and the

cultural aspect, which has now gone into tourism. There are lots of

projects. As a matter of fact, I can think of . . . . I can't stop

counting the number of projects that need funding throughout this . . .

Interjections.

MS. EDWARDS : Oh, I'm serious. I've got them in my riding, and

in other ridings. They need funding. They need to be developed. They

need to be developed as part of the actual background of British

Columbia. They don't need to have some slot machines in the middle of

them, I'll tell you. The kinds of cultural development that we've got

do not lend themselves to that sort of thing.

[10:45]

The objectives, I understand, are to improve the income and to

expand the cultural and heritage part of tourism. Terrific. I think

that when we do expand the cultural and heritage and recreational

aspects of the resource that we have, and when we actually make some

decisions about some land use planning and where we're going to put

that, where we're going to balance off and know that we're going to

have resource uses that are exploitive, instead of resource uses that

are non-exploitive, then in fact we're going to have some directions to

go in.

So in response to the member for Columbia River, I hope we're going

to hear that part of the plans in the Ministry of Tourism is that we're

going to look for some more land use plans throughout the province.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, in response to comments from my

neighbouring MLA, I want to address this point of wilderness tourism

for a moment, and to mention that the government has just announced

that there's 95 percent agreement on the Height of the Rockies

wilderness area, which is in both of our ridings. I also want to

mention that the economic spinoffs of this tourism industry are

tremendously great. Not only is the tourism industry a major employer

in this province; in fact, we are the number one employer in terms of

jobs created. Secondly, many of those jobs that are created are for our

young people — that's very important.

I also want to mention that the education program the Ministry of

Tourism is embarking on in creating the Pacific Rim tourism institute

is a positive development. The creation of education programs such as

SuperHost and the SuperHost Encore program for 1987 is going to help

our tourism industry stay at the forefront throughout North America.

I also want to mention that some very significant programs that are

happening in the Ministry of Tourism are because of the many excellent

creative people that have been

[ Page 774 ]

hired by that ministry. I can point to things like

the SuperHost program, the Encore program, and the marketing and

merchandising programs, where, through some of their efforts, we are

now directing major marketing approaches to the major markets of

California and eastern Canada.

I also want to mention, Mr. Speaker, to my neighbouring MLA from

Kootenay that the golf course being developed in the Windermere area is

going to provide, I'm sure, more jobs than she mentioned the other day.

I look forward to some day when she and I can play golf together in

that great East Kootenay riding of British Columbia.

FUTURE OF COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE : Before I start my little talk, I'm really pleased

to see the minister's here, because it has to do with the use of land

and the preservation of farmland. I take it as an honour that he is

here to respond. Certainly I'd like him to know that he will have the

full five minutes, and if he needs more than that, we'd be willing to

give it to him.

My topic really has to do with the future of Colony Farm. I think that anyone who studies the order paper — probably no more than three Druids, at most, bother with it —

will see that I feel that the Colony Farm should not be under BCBC but

under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, where it could

be leased out for bona fide farmers, as is Minnekhada, another farm

which is owned by the government. As long as it's under BCBC, there'll

be constant pressure on that piece of property, which is excellent

class 1 and 2 land, for upgrading to, according to some — to quote the real estate people — "higher and better use."

We are extremely fearful of that. It's not an ungrounded fear,

because from time to time we hear rumours about it going for a golf

course, a racetrack or something like that. The creation of

recreational facilities is equally important. The Minister of Tourism,

I know, will agree with me there. And the preservation of the things we

hold dear …. An island, tranquillity amid an urban sea of chaos, is

something worth preserving.

It's not that farmland is not under jeopardy. We know that, for

instance, Terra Nova is a big issue: whether that farmland is to be

preserved in Richmond. We heard about the golf course in Cranbrook just

a minute ago, and the exclusion from the agricultural land reserve.

We've heard about Lac la Hache: 250 acres right there on the lake. I'm

sure the member for Cariboo will know well about it, how it was taken

out of the agricultural land reserve and put into some other kind of

zoning; opposed by the regional district, opposed by the cattlemen,

opposed by just about everybody, except those people who wanted to take

it and flip it and develop it. So it's not something that is not a real

bogey. It is a bogey. Since 1974 we have lost something like 7,000

acres a year out of agricultural land, in spite of the Agricultural

Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : I'm talking about net loss. If you want the exact

figures, I've got them here, published by the Agricultural Land

Commission themselves. We have gained an inclusion of 68,000 hectares

and we have lost 113,000 hectares. Where have we lost them? We've lost

them in the Fraser Valley, the Cowichan Valley and the Okanagan Valley.

That's where the pressure is — Salmon Arm and other seasonally

advantageous areas. Where have we gained them? We've gained them in the

Peace River, the Liard River and places such as that. Eighty percent of

the inclusions, as opposed to the exclusions, have been rangeland which

was once under Forests or some other jurisdiction. So we haven't really

had a net gain; we've had a net loss in good farmland.

Let's get back to Colony Farm. We learned recently, through a flashy

brochure, designed to convince councils …. By the way, it was described

by Mike Tytherleigh in the best way. I don't know if it's

parliamentary, but he described the whole development proposal as

"horse manure." I think the mushroom treatment might be better. Anyway,

this was about encouraging councils, through such lures as job

creation, buildings, UBC involvement — why UBC Health of Animals

can't go to Exhibition Park if they want to look at horses, or out to

Cloverdale, is beyond me, but they certainly seem to think that they'd

like to look at horses at Colony Farm . . . . It's bait; it's lure;

it's a carrot.

What I think is going to happen to this is no racetrack at all,

hotel, casino or anything else. What's going to happen is that this

will be promised to a council, council will agree to go for that

particular bait, there'll be pressure to remove it for good — for justifiable economic reasons, not environmental reasons —

from the agricultural land reserve, and once it's removed, there'll be

no racetrack. There'll be nothing there, except the kind of development

that some developer down the road wants. That's what we're concerned

about.

All around that hillside, government land was sold above Riverview

for up to $60,000 a lot. Why was that land so valuable? It was valuable

residential land because, first, it was not occupying any farmland, and

second, it overlooked a tremendously tranquil, pastoral vista. Colony

Farm has been vulnerable ever since it was closed down by the previous

government under the guise of restraint. It hasn't been used — we know that —

except minimally; but it hadn't really been used before. We are

concerned that this is some kind of a scam to get it out of the

reserve; and once it's out of the reserve, all bets are off.

The minister said to the agrologist that he has not approved the

exclusion of one parcel of land since he's been minister. I hope he

keeps it up. I think it's an astonishing record, and I congratulate him

for it. But we should have a structure, not just the protection of

valuable land by a benign minister. We need stronger sanctions than

that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Speaker, to the opposition House Leader,

I'd like to say that the first issue I'd like to address is the land

reserve itself. We all realize that while we recognize the need for

jobs, the need for growth and the need to employ our upcoming

generations, with all due respect, we also recognize the need to feed

our people. We have that always in our minds. There won't be many

humans around if we don't have enough land to produce food to feed them.

But let me go beyond that. I can recollect a prime piece of

agricultural land in Delta, once my grandfather's farm and one of the

better dairy operations in Delta. That came out of the ALR and is now

part of the Tilbury industrial park. But it employed an awful lot of

people, and generated a lot of jobs and dollars. That was part of the

cost of it coming out.

When we go to Colony Farm . . . . I'd like to address the problem of

whether that would in fact have to come out of the ALR — if we even get a formal proposal, which we do not have at this stage. We do not have a formal proposal to

[ Page 775 ]

develop Colony Farm. When it came to the Cabinet

Committee on Economic Development, discussion was based on the fact

that there were a number of scenarios. If it was a racetrack, could it

be classed agricultural? In Delta, the centre oval of the Patterson

Park racetrack is agricultural. It's used as such.

The other thing is the research projects that are talked about by

the University of B.C. They have 100 acres or thereabouts. We have

stressed for years and years having short-term, immediate-turnover

research that would be valuable to the agricultural community. It's

absolutely necessary to do that. We have all kinds of long-term

research projects across this country, but if we could have short-term

research done on the agricultural land at Colony Farm, it would be of

benefit to the agricultural community of this province.

The second thing was the veterinary situation you talked about. We

do not have a veterinary college in B.C. You were discussing whether

where the buildings are wouldn't be a good location for a veterinary

college. I think there are some positive aspects to the proposal, but

that does not necessarily mean that the agricultural land has to change

in its use. The zoning does not necessarily have to change. I think

it's important to recognize that if we're going to have future

employment opportunities, we have to judge carefully and at the same

time keep in mind that we have to feed the people the next God knows

how many generations we'll be on this earth — hopefully forever — and we have to provide an opportunity for that land base to provide the food they require.

I think that before that ever comes, and if it ever comes as a

formal application, all those matters will be weighed duly and fairly

by this House.

MR. ROSE : I just received a clarification for Lac la Hache.

The member says it was only 40 acres that were taken out along the

lake. I guess it was 250 yards. I'm sorry if I made that mistake, but

since the member is so intimate with it, perhaps he'd like to make a

speech on that subject sometime as well.

I'd just like to thank the minister for his response and say to him

that when this land was first put up for sale I tried to get the

federal government and UBC to buy it for an experimental farm, so I'm

not opposed to that part of it. What we don't need is a PNE-type

racetrack there. And as far as young farmers and the employment of

young people is concerned, wouldn't it be nice if young people could

earn their living on farms? They certainly can't in this province. He

knows that. How many young people? You're not even a generation away

from the farm. I'm three generations away from the farm. My kids are

four generations away from the farm. So the farm proposal to put it

under the Ministry of Agriculture is just wonderful, as far as I'm

concerned. We wouldn't object to that at all, but we don't need a

hotel, we don't need a casino, we don't need a stupid golf course with

a water trap over onto Douglas Island. It's a ludicrous proposal. Even

Jack Diamond laughed his sides out when he heard about the racetrack.

That's federal racing days. He's got a seven-year lease at PNE. It's a

scam; that's what it is. It's an attempt to get it out to lure

councils. And that's why we've got an agricultural land commission:

because councils couldn't resist such blandishments in the past.

So I'm with the Minister of Agriculture all the way on this one. We want Colony Farm to remain as a farm.

[11:00]

Now just a brief, not very serious point of order. I happened to be

looking at rule 47A and I happened to notice that it was designed for

the purpose of people who were private members. I would like the

Clerks' office and the Speaker's office to have a look at this and

determine the intention, to see whether or not a parliamentary

secretary such as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) is

actually a private member, or has he, because he is a parliamentary

secretary, taken the place in debate of some private member who might

wish to debate and use that time.

MR. SPEAKER : The opposition House Leader brings up a very

good point, and I would recommend to all members, if they haven't yet

received their copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia 's

second edition, which has been done by one of our Clerks, George

MacMinn, that they take an opportunity of reading it this weekend. It's

an exciting book to read . . .

MR. ROSE : If you can't sleep.

MR. SPEAKER : . . . especially if you have a hard time

sleeping. I would quote on page 35 of that book, under that standing

order that the opposition House Leader mentioned: "For the purposes of

this standing order, 'private member' in British Columbia has been

interpreted as any member of the House who does not hold cabinet rank,

i.e., a member of the government. Therefore 'private member' includes

government back-benchers and all opposition members, whether or not

such opposition members have 'shadow cabinet' status."

So it has been looked at on page 35, and that would cover . . . . It

basically says that anybody who is not a cabinet minister is eligible

under this standing order; but if you haven't got your copy yet, the

Clerk will be delivering them to all of you.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It indeed is an exciting book, a fount of information.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BRUMMET : What I would like to do today is reiterate

a bit of what I had said yesterday and expand on some of the other

concerns, both correct and incorrect, that seem to be surfacing. I did

say yesterday that I was determined to make this legislation as fair

and clear as possible, and I'm willing to accept specific suggestions.

I might point out that that is one of the reasons that Bill 20 has been

brought forward: so that it can include discussions in this House,

which up to this point, of course, would have been ruled out of order.

I listened to much of the discussion on Bill 19, and some good

points were made. There was good discussion which will illicit further

discussion on Bill 20. We had a meeting with staff members from the

BCSTA and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They are trying to put

together an agenda of topics to be discussed where the legislation can

be improved, where blemishes can be removed, where unintended items can

be corrected or omissions can be corrected. That group is

[ Page 776 ]

now making a recommendation on topics and there

will be scheduled meetings to further discuss the legislation while

we're discussing second reading of Bill 20.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In some respects, to this point I've received some very good

suggestions. I'm expecting many more, and I can assure the House at

this point that there will be some amendments to the legislation. They

will be brought forward when we put the package together, because, as

people familiar with legislation know, so many things interrelate and

affect some other areas, and the ramifications all have to be sorted

out.

I did say that the government had responded to the requests of both

the teachers and the school trustees. After numerous discussions that I

had with both organizations, their executives, many school boards, many

parents and many teachers — with just about anyone that would talk to me about education —

we've responded with some of the fundamental principles that I think

are sound and will make for a much better education system in the

province.

One of those fundamental principles was full bargaining rights for

teachers in line with every other group in our society. In that respect

there was also divided opinion among the teachers about whether they

wanted full bargaining rights including the right to strike — whether that was by discussions with me or by votes they held in the past —

so I felt it was imperative that they be given that choice. This

legislation puts the emphasis on giving them that choice as an

association.

The other point that was made repeatedly, and is actually what

officially is supposed to be happening now, is the primacy of the local

association and its board to do the bargaining with each other as

employee group and employer, and that has been provided. We also saw

that there should be adequate separation between the professional

functions of teachers, that they be given the professional choice to

deal with professional matters as distinct from the collective

bargaining process, and that has been recognized here. The B.C.

Teachers' Federation very strongly made the point that they wanted

professional control by their own members over their own members — the qualifications, standards and disciplining of their members. This has been provided.

It's rather interesting to hear some of the concerns that are being

expressed. Basically I just have the media reports, but it seems to be

that they are saying that the government plans to use the College of

Teachers act to get rid of teachers that the government doesn't like. I

don't know how that

interpretation came about, because the College of

Teachers will be run by elected representatives from the teachers'

organization. The judgment will be made by their own peers who have

been elected by their members. The government will not have any role in

trying to deal with whether or not a teacher shall go. There is quite a

bit of due process in there. For instance, I don't want to get into

clause-by-clause, but one of the other criticisms has been that any

three members on that college can, in effect, lift the teacher's

certification in this province. The point that hasn't been made is that

all you have to read is the second part of that sentence in the

legislation, which says only with the consent of the member; if the

member does not consent, then it has to go to the full council and the

full due process kicks in.

Some of these distortions or misunderstandings that have been put out there have given teachers unnecessary concerns.

If anybody should have any trepidation about whether or not

teachers' representatives are going to deal appropriately with

disciplining their own members, perhaps it should be me. I find it

appalling that the teachers' organizations — some of them or some of their leaders —

are saying that they are concerned that their members aren't going to

treat them fairly. I really have difficulty understanding that.

The case being made for the separation of principals and for the

separation of the professional role has probably been made by some of

the BCTF activities over the last year better than I could make it.

Their own code of ethics says that a privileged relationship exists

between students and teachers and must not be exploited to private

advantage. I don't know whether increases in salaries for teachers fall

under the heading of private advantage, but the work-to-rule of the

past year — and you could read that anywhere in the literature —

was basically: "Unless the board makes a better salary offer, we are

going to withdraw services." So they have made the case, in effect,

much better than I can.

Even today, I believe, the BCTF executive is meeting, as I

understand, to decide whether or not principals will be authorized to

stay in the schools if they have a walkout. The principals are managers

of those schools. If the teachers don't show up, say on an illegal work

stoppage, the principal has the necessary authority to stay there in

the school to make sure that the students are safe and that they will

be sent home only when there is somebody there to receive them —

to make all those sorts of arrangements. Here we have the BCTF

executive, a small group at the BCTF office, about to meet to decide

whether or not principals will be authorized to stay in the schools. If

anything makes the case for the excluded role of the managers, that

makes it better than any words that I could use.

The other thing, of course, is that I have talked to many teachers

who did not want to work to rule. They did not want to quit coaching a

team; they did not want to quit some of the activities. But they felt

that because of their compulsory membership in the B.C. Teachers'

Federation, if they didn't listen to those instructions they would be

punished; they could be kicked out of the BCTF. That was their concern,

and that concern has been expressed to me and is being expressed to me

now by teachers: "If I choose to go to work next Tuesday, can you

protect me by making sure that I retain my right to teach in this

province, which at the moment means compulsory membership in the B.C.

Teachers' Federation?" Those are some of the concerns expressed.

This legislation is not against the B.C. Teachers' Federation. This

legislation is for teachers and for students in this province. Any

local association, by choice and not by compulsion, can now continue to

support the BCTF, a provincial organization, to whatever extent they

wish. Surely that should not be that great a concern. That decision has

to be made locally. Many decisions have to be made locally.

In the presentation to the Minister of Labour, appendix A was made .

. . . I could go through the whole thing, but the basic headings are

that what if teachers wanted, when they made that formal presentation,

the right to have fair employee bargaining procedures for teachers set

in legislation. That's exactly what this legislation does: the right to

of employment – full bargaining rights. That is exactly what this

legislation provides. The general right to negotiate the terms and

conditions of teachers' employment. Other things like teachers' rights

as employees, seeking full collective

[ Page 777 ]

bargaining rights for B.C. teachers, coverage under

the Labour Code and access to its procedures. That's there, by choice.

Because some teachers didn't want it, we have given them the choice.

They have that choice to make at a local association level.

[11:15]

And this one: "That collective bargaining continue to be conducted

between local school boards of school trustees and local associations

of the BCTF." That's where we have put the power for the bargaining,

and that is presumably where the power lies now. "That the local

association of teachers be required to elect whether or not an

unresolved bargaining dispute will be resolved by arbitration or by

withdrawal of services." That choice has been provided in this

legislation. "That the BCTF seek to maintain fair pension protection in

the framework of the teachers' pension act." I only mention that

because the pension thing isn't included in this. The teachers' pension

act is a separate act which has been left. So there's no change in the

pension. You can go through all of that: local bargaining, choice

mechanism. They specified time-lines in that presentation. The only

thing we haven't included is time-lines; we think those can be

discussed.

One of the other things is that they have more professional control

over their members. That has been provided. I've mentioned that the

college does have due process, and that it is by their own elected

representatives. I have mentioned that the due process is there. A lot

has been made of 30-day notice. Ever since I've been teaching, a board

could give you 30 days' notice at the end of June. In the legislation

it clearly says that the board must state the cause. If the teacher

challenges that, they have to have a hearing by the board under the

association route. Under the union route, of course, that can all be

worked out in the collective agreement and is subject to all of the

rights and privileges that anybody has under the Labour Code.

If people choose to form an association, they have the due process

there; if they don't accept this, the reason for dismissal has to be

mentioned. If that reason is not acceptable, the teacher can have a

meeting with the board to insist that the board show that the cause is

legitimate. If he doesn't accept that, the teacher can then appeal to

the minister, and the minister shall — not may, but shall — appoint a board of reference. One of those people is nominated by the teacher, one by the school board — since those are the two parties involved —

and the chairman is selected by them. The only place where the minister

kicks in is if they can't agree on a chairman, or if they can't agree

on a board of appeal. There always has to be something. What if these

steps don't work? In that respect there has been so much emphasis on

the final process, the strike, all of these things. There's an awful

lot of mediation and consultation and everything else that's

incorporated between that.

The biggest emphasis right now is by the teachers to please delay

this bill. I have to wonder what they want delayed. We have granted

full bargaining rights. Is it full bargaining rights that they want

delayed? We have taken away the increments as part of the salary

increases under the compensation stabilization program. This is part of

the package — it flows as a package. Do they want the increments

back in there? Do they want that delayed? We are removing the CSP.

Granted, it's being phased in, so I can see their impatience; it should

happen this year. But it's definitely going. Is that what they want put

on hold, what goes with this package? Do they want put on hold the

local association bargaining vehicle? Is that what they want delayed?

Do they want that taken out? Do they want professional control of their

members? Do they want that rejected now?

You have to keep in mind too that the B.C. Teachers' Federation

said, even before this legislation was introduced at their annual

general meeting, that they were going to initiate escalating job action

which could result in the right to withdrawal of services before the

end of this school year. Why? In order to get full bargaining rights,

removal of CSP — all of the things that are incorporated in the

legislation. So they were threatening these activities in order to get

what we have given them. They asked for full bargaining rights. Now

they're saying: "But we want this left in the act, we want this left in

the act, we want this left in the act." If I take three or four of

their suggestions, and three or four suggestions that might be some

reluctance on the part of the government to grant these rights, we

could take pretty well all of these principles out of the bill and be

back to where we are and delay the process.

The other thing they've said since the legislation was introduced is

that they are going to escalate job action until the government

withdraws these bills. I have offered full consultation on clarifying

or improving the legislation, and consultation is going on and will go

on. But what are we to do then? Delay this in order to allow escalating

job action, including withdrawal of services, work to rule, all of

these things on a prolonged basis, when the public is sick and tired of

the kids being punished for what the teachers want? I did say yesterday

that we teach by example as well as by what we say and what we put in

the hands of the students. When I was a teacher many years ago I

said — and I still maintain it — that if you use certain

tactics to get your way, if you don't like something and you use

illegal procedures to achieve that, then as saddening as it is, we

can't expect the students not to pick up by example and try to use some

of that. Sadly enough, some of these things are happening.

One of the things that is being threatened is graduation exercises.

I can assure you that if a student has been in school for 12 years, he

is entitled to graduation exercises. There are enough professional

people there, regardless of all of this other stuff, that they'll go

ahead with the graduation exercises, and I'll make every effort to make

sure that those students who have gone through that will be entitled to

those rights.

Consultation goes on. What are we to do? Delay in order to provide greater and continued job action —

which was already threatened before the legislation was ever

introduced, in order to achieve what the legislation provides? These

are the sorts of difficulties I'm having. I've said: "Let's talk about

it. Where do you think it doesn't go far enough? Where do you think it

goes too far?" This sort of thing. It's wide open; we'll talk about

anything. But I don't think that with everything that has happened we

can turn around and say that the basic principles of this

legislation — the separation of the professional arm . . . . I think the teachers when they govern themselves professionally can do that job.

As we give them more union rights, if you like, we also have to have

the excluded personnel, which is true in any employee organization, and

this is an employee organization as well as a professional

organization. So we're saying you can have that.

These are the things that we have provided. The basic principles of

the bill, as I have said, were well considered, for good reasons, and

can stand. As I concluded yesterday, I am

[ Page 778 ]

convinced that the concepts in this legislation

will serve the best interests of the students, of the parents, of our

society in this province, and the education system. I've also said, and

I reiterate, that I think with a proper look at this and without any

good will — and there is plenty out there — this legislation

can work to the betterment of the total education system and the

teaching profession in this province. I would hope that all members of

this House can eventually support this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North and has been notified that he is designated speaker.

MR. JONES : Before I get into my discussion in principle of

Bill 20, I would like to make some introductory comments on the timing

of the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's very exciting being in opposition —

particularly exciting yesterday. When the government controls the

legislative agenda, you never know from one day to the next what kind

of thing is going to be happening, and all kinds of surprises can

occur. This was to me a quite unexpected introduction of second reading

of Bill 20.

While the minister was introducing this bill yesterday for second

reading, there was a meeting going on, I think a very important

meeting. It was a meeting of officials from the BCTF, from the BCSTA

and from the Ministry of Education. At 5:30 yesterday these formal

meetings were still going on and, in fact, surprisingly they continued

last night. The problem that I have with the introduction of this bill

at this time is that the Premier said: "If strikes are threatened, I

will push through this legislation more quickly than originally

planned." Last week the threat of such an action was postponed by the

teachers in light of these kinds of talks. Because talks were underway,

because it looked like the door was opening for some meaningful

consultation on this matter, that threat was at least postponed until

it was evident that these talks were going to be meaningful.

Yesterday officials did meet on a discussion of agenda, and I'm very

pleased that the minister reports that there are areas that are agreed

upon, and there is an opportunity for movement and discussion. I very

much welcome his comments that he is interested in seeking true

consultation and opportunity for amendments to this legislation.

Certainly nobody wants the threat of the sword of Damocles hanging over

anybody's head during negotiations. The sword of Damocles on the

government's part was the introduction of this bill, and on the part of

the teachers in this province it was the protest and the job action

that they had democratically voted on and were planning to institute

but postponed.

I was very surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the introduction of this

legislation in the midst of those kinds of talks. I think the

postponement by the teachers was very much appreciated by everybody in

this province. Certainly I appreciated it. I'm sure the minister

appreciated it. The parents and the children and the school trustees

all appreciated that postponement. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure they equally

don't appreciate the introduction of this bill when such talks are

going on.

I think we have learned that these kinds of discussions are very

sensitive. They're very important because, as the minister says, they

affect the lives of the children of this province. The success of those

talks depends upon the sensitivity of government. They don't need the

heavy hand. They don't need these signs. What are the signals being

sent? I can't see any other signal by the introduction of this

legislation at this time — when the minister talked about bringing it up as a threat — other than a sign of bad-faith bargaining and a return to confrontation.

Interjection.

MR. JONES : I want those talks to succeed, Mr. Speaker. I

don't want to inflame this situation; and I'm very saddened that the

introduction of second reading at this time, I think, does just that. I

don't think anybody wants to inflame this situation, and I don't think

we want to see the kind of war language that we often see in the media.

I'm surprised that there weren't headlines this morning — I guess, because of the lateness of the introduction of the bill —

that would talk about preemptive strikes and declarations of war and

dropping a bombshell in the midst of negotiations. I don't think we

want that kind of language; and yet I'm surprised that that's the kind

of procedure that I think the minister has invited. I think we want

those talks to be fruitful and we want them to continue.

I must express my disappointment at the insensitivity of government

in introducing this bill for second reading at this time. I can't

imagine the mentality of government. Surely there must be other

important legislation that could have been dealt with. We have many

bills, estimates and other important pieces of legislation to discuss

in this House. To bring in this bill at this time totally confounds me.

It does not make any common sense. If we had picked a time – any day,

any month, any session in the remainder of this government's mandate –

we could not have picked a worse day than yesterday to introduce this

bill. It makes about as much common sense as shouting "Fire!" in a

crowded theatre. What we have is not only poor legislation — and I'm pleased that the minister is inviting amendments — but it's most poorly timed, and I think it's indicative of a poor government.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, although my role in this House is a role of opposition,

I don't see my role as just to oppose. I see that my role is also to

praise government; and I've demonstrated that I'm quite prepared to do

that. When the minister brought in his proposal on early retirement, I

certainly praised the minister not only for the product because it was

both fiscally sound and educationally sound but also for the process

that brought forward that product. That was one of true consultation

with all parties in education involved to bring about a sound early

retirement program. So I am prepared to praise the government, but I

find it very difficult in this situation.

But I do agree with the minister when he speaks of the importance of

the schoolchild in considering this legislation and that that

perspective be paramount. I'll even give the minister the benefit of

the doubt that he believes in that concept as passionately as I do. My

role in this Legislature, I think, is to defend those children. The

history of this province has been that those children need defending

from attacks by Social Credit governments, in a series of attacks by

this government and previous governments to the education system in

this province. My 20 years of adult life has been dedicated to this

end. Certainly a major portion of my working hours and non-working

hours has been committed to this objective. It's precisely for that

reason, for the schoolchildren of this province, that I oppose this

bill in the strongest possible terms, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have to try to decide on a framework in which to view this legislation. There are three contexts in which I

[ Page 779 ]

would like to discuss this bill: the historical

context, a Canadian context, and in the context of children of British

Columbia. If we do look at Bill 20 in the context of the child and ask

what it holds for the children of this province or what it holds for my

child in the future . . . . I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that

parenthood is new to me. My wife and I had our first child shortly

after the last election, and that experience was a tremendous test for

us: our baby was very colicky; he slept very little in the day; he was

in pain a good deal of the time. We decided that that child was not

going to be alone and in discomfort. And we committed ourselves that he

would grow up in a secure and a loving environment, so that he can be

everything that he possibly can be, so that he can achieve his

potential. I know I'm not unique as a parent; I'm sure all parents

share those sentiments. I think we all share those sentiments as well

for our school system.

We want a school system in which the organization of human

relationships is treated with sensitivity. Very central to those

relationships is the relationship between the teacher and the student.

But there are other relationships that are important as well: the ones

between the teacher and the parent, between the teacher and the

principal, between the teacher and the superintendent and the school

board, and also between the teacher and the government and the public

at large.

I think we want to nurture and strengthen that central relationship and really believe in the Latin phrase in loco parentis —

in place of the parent. We want that relationship to be a loving one,

to express the central theme of caring and nurturing. I think we in the

Legislature, and everybody involved in the education system, have a

responsibility to maintain and nurture and foster that central

relationship.

That relationship can easily be strained. The demands of that role

are particularly challenging. The energy of young people in our

province today and in the school system puts tremendous strains on that

relationship. That relationship has to carry on for that teacher day

in, day out, year in, year out for 25 or 30 years, or whatever the

length of career might be. We have a tremendous responsibility to

nurture that relationship. I think you could imagine the strains of

being a designated speaker day in, day out, year in, year out for an

entire career. As legislators you perhaps appreciate that analogy.

Certainly I'm feeling the pressures of being the designated speaker

today.

We have a tremendous commitment, not only to nurture that

relationship but to do so in order that we maximize the potential of

those young people that we care so much about in our families and that

we should care about equally as much in our school system. To have that

relationship of one individual teacher with 20, 25, 35 or, in some

cases, as many as 250 young people in their charge . . . . We must be

diligent in protecting that relationship.

All of the other relationships that go on in and outside of the

school system impact on that central relationship. The relationship of

teachers with their colleagues — to have that relationship take

place in an environment that, rather than being one of controversy is

one of educational thought and focusing on the educational needs of

students, rather than on the current strife with the government . . . .

We don't need disruptions in that relationship; we don't need an

adversarial system in this province. I think as members of this

Legislature we learn from each other, and that happens in the school

system as well. That's an important relationship, and should be

nurtured.

That relationship should be one that is mutually uplifting, and

students benefit most when that relationship happens in a positive

climate, not one of confrontation. Students benefit most when teachers

are growing in that supportive environment.

All of those relationships are important. The relationships with

principals are important. Certainly it's a superordinate-subordinate

relationship; certainly the principals do have a supervisory function.

But just as children grow best when that relationship is a supportive

one rather than a bossy one, teachers function and grow best when they

have a supportive relationship with their principals; when they share

goals, and that goal is the best interests of the students. When

teachers function best in a close working relationship, students

function best as well.

The relationship between the superintendent and the board . . . .

Students are also impacted by this relationship. When the employer, the

school board, shows that it values the teachers in its system, that it

cares about them, that it respects them, then the students benefit by

that kind of relationship as well.

What we see in this province at this moment is at least 20 boards

expressing tremendous concern about this bill. They want to see it

delayed, and these are school boards that the minister says got

everything they wanted. They want to see a broader consultation process

take place with this legislation — at least 20 boards. We see the

president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association performing a very

productive role, a conciliatory role, trying to bring the teachers and

this government together to work harmoniously to solve these problems

that exist in the school system, to try to amend this legislation to

make it workable. I think the students can only benefit as well with

that kind of role played by school boards in this province.

The relationship between government and the public — and I put

those two together because public opinion is very strongly shaped by

government . . . . Certainly government has the most powerful

opinion-making apparatus in this province, and it has a powerful effect

on the relationship between teachers and students. It has a powerful

effect on the climate in schools, and on the potential for a positive

influence on the teacher-student relationship or damage to that

relationship. I'm pleading for a greater sensitivity on the part of

government, so that that relationship is nurtured and not damaged. The

school system is a complex web of relationships between all the major

parties. It's not a factory that produces widgets. It thrives on trust

and support. It doesn't thrive on the controversy, confrontation and

disruption that I think we're seeing.

What does Bill 20 do for the school system? What does it do for

those relationships? What does Bill 20 do for the students of this

province? All I've seen it do is inject controversy and confrontation.

It pits government against teachers. It pits members of society against

teachers. Bill 20 alters the relationship between boards and teachers.

It alters the relationship between principals and teachers. It pits

teachers against teachers. I've heard conversations in staff rooms in

the last few months, and they're not on the needs of the students and

their care but on trying to figure out Bills 19 and 20, and I think

that's an unproductive use of those teachers' time. Rather than sharing

their experiences for the benefit of the children of this province,

they're again being injected into a controversial environment.

[ Page 780 ]

This bill is a dangerous experiment. It has long-range implications

for the school system and for the students in that school system. I see

it offering students nothing but more confrontation, more controversy

and more jeopardizing of those very sensitive relationships that have

endured tremendous hardships in recent years.

Bill 20 has to be considered in the context of those relationships

and how they impact on children. It's a tremendous responsibility and a

real challenge for this government — a challenge for any

government and a real opportunity to be sensitive, to be caring and to

try to develop a climate that's not disruptive and deliberately

provocative, and does not damage the school system further. I see this

legislation dividing teacher against teacher, making factory-style

bosses out of principals and making the powers of school boards to

destroy the careers of teachers quite frightening. I don't think

anybody wants to harm these relationships deliberately, but that is the

impact of this legislation. It's not in the best interests of children

in this province. I really think that the government should take the

advice of those 20 boards I mentioned and reconsider this legislation,

and do what the minister said in his introductory remarks about there

being a full public discussion of this legislation.

We not only have to look at this legislation in the context of the

schoolchildren of this province, but I think we also have to look at it

in terms of the Canadian context. British Columbia does not exist in

isolation. It is one of the ten provinces. Ours is one of ten

provincial governments, and those ten provincial governments work with

220,000 schoolteachers in this country. Mr. Speaker, if you imagined a

flight across this country and envisioned the ten capitals below and

the school systems that operate with those provincial governments, I

think you'd see almost complete consistency with respect to the

structures of teachers' organizations and the collective bargaining

rights that those teachers' organizations operate under. In no province

in Canada do we see the separation of the professional role of teachers

and the economic role of their organizations. There are unitary

organizations in every other province in this country. No other

province saw the need for such separation. These provinces have had

full collective bargaining rights for years, and those bargaining

rights included principals, whom we see being removed with this

legislation. British Columbia is unique in terms of this division —

the lobotomy of the left brain and the right brain of teachers'

organizations. It exists nowhere else in Canada, and it does not have

to exist in this province, despite the supposed rationale of the

minister.

[11:45]

In all but one province, principals and vice-principals belong to

the same units as the teachers' organization. They are together. They

work collegially. They have common interests in the best education

being provided for the students in their provinces. In all but one

province we see no need for such separation. Why does it have to be so

in British Columbia? Why do we have to have a separation of the

professional side and the economic side? Why do we have to have a

separation of principals and teachers? It doesn't exist, by and large,

in any other province in Canada. Why is B.C. so different? What is so

unique about British Columbia?

As well, in no other province do we see a college of teachers as is

being proposed here. In that imaginary flight we would not see a single

college existing in this country. There were two jurisdictions — Alberta under Premier Lougheed, Ontario under Premier Davis —

that thought, following a ministers of education conference in 1981,

this might be a positive way to go. They found that it was not the

desired route of the teachers, and in both of those provinces the

governments had the wisdom to withdraw that legislation. They

recognized that that legislation cannot be imposed; it cannot operate

successfully without the consent, the support, the agreement of

teachers in that province. That's why B. C. is again unique.

I do not understand why British Columbia has to be the only province

in Canada that has a college of teachers. It was no accident, when we

look at this bill in the Canadian context, that leaders of teachers'

organizations from every province and territory in this country were

present in this House on that day. They're watching this legislation

very closely. They know that this province has the potential to do good

for school systems or do evil for school systems. They're very

concerned about the introduction of this college. This government has

created a national concern about the College of Teachers. The teachers'

organizations of every province and territory across Canada are

watching very closely what we're doing here. B.C. teachers want to be

part of the Canadian context. They're tired of being singled out and

treated differently, and I don't understand why it happens in this

province.

Wise governments of all political persuasions have found ways of

working with their teachers. Let's put British Columbia back on the map

in education. Let's make it part of the Canadian context. Let's find

ways of working with our teachers and getting all parts of the

education system to work together, to cooperate, to achieve consensus.

The Canadian context tells us that Bill 20 is inappropriate. It does

not fit in the Canadian context. British Columbia is not unique; it's

part of Canada. And if we look at this bill in terms of the Canadian

context, just as we looked at it in terms of the context of the child,

then I think the only conclusion would be that it's necessary to

withdraw this legislation to give it the opportunity for full public

consultation; to do something with it that allows an opportunity for

people to work together in harmony and not create the division and

diversity that this bill does.

A third, and a very important, context in which to look at this

legislation is the historical context. In this respect British Columbia

is unique. The history of education in this province is, I believe,

unlike any other in Canada. I think we have to look at Bill 20 in terms

of the backdrop, the stage on which this legislation is being set. Look

at the last ten years of education in this province, and there are

members of this House on both sides who have been school trustees in

the last ten years. I think we're part of that history, a history

described in some books as school wars. If we look to the late '70s

under the ministership of Dr. McGeer, I think we see the beginnings of

bad times in education in British Columbia, the sowings of seeds that

do not bode well for the future that we face today. Those were the days

when we saw the beginnings of teacher-bashing, and I think Dr. McGeer

relished that role, and tried to impart that attitude to the public

with the introduction of such mistrust mechanisms, such external

examination mechanisms, as the core curriculum and PLAP. But even in

those days, Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere, the climate or the attitude in

education in British Columbia survived those onslaughts fairly well. It

was not a totally divisive period. There was progress. In the late

seventies a number of programs were introduced that were in the best

interest of children — quality programs that benefited students.

[ Page 781 ]

What you have to do if you look at the historical context is try to

put yourself in the place of the teacher, the teacher who is looking to

adults, as the minister says, for leadership — and we see six

Ministers of Education in seven years, starting with Dr. McGeer and

ending with the current minister. In that period we see a tremendous

number of changes to the school system. We see five major studies or

proposals, every one altering relationships, changing course, moving

directions and changing curriculum.

One change that the previous government made was the introduction of

consumer education as a compulsory course in our school system. It was

a tremendous, upsetting kind of thing to give consumer education — which is a valuable part of the curriculum —

mathematics or social studies, injecting it, without the preparation of

teachers, into a system that was already crowded with demands. As a

teacher in that system you have to imagine yourself continually being

buffeted by these kinds of things in the recent history of education in

this province.

In the last couple of years we went from a major study, "Let's Talk

About Schools," to the Sullivan commission. Confusion has reigned in

our school system in the last few years.

You are aware of the changes in the financing and the changes to

formulas that have existed for school boards and for the education

system in this province in the last five years — another

tremendously upsetting process. It was upsetting to the participants in

the system and to the relationships. Those people who were on school

boards during that period . . . . I think there was one period over a

year where as school trustees we produced something like 20 budgets.

When we're talking about $60 million budgets, we're talking about a

tremendous effort in human energy and time, and a tremendous amount of

confusion with the goalposts being changed and the rules being altered

to create chaos, havoc, mistrust and problems that ultimately affect

the children of the province.

We saw all kinds of bills introduced. We saw the Education (Interim)

Finance Act and the Compensation Stabilization Act. In October `82 we

saw Bill 89 introduced by the current Premier, which closed schools for

six days, and the loss of six non-instructional days for teachers and

the lengthening of the school day. We saw the Sager commission in 1983.

We saw a whole restraint package following that — a restraint

package that turned the education system in this province upside down.

We saw Bill 3, firing without cause in the public sector. We saw Bill

6, the Education (Interim) Finance Act. We saw Bill 11, the

Compensation Stabilization Act, which the minister says is on its way

out. The main feature of that was the ability to pay being the

paramount factor in the consideration of arbitration awards, which

still remains. We saw a tremendous chaos in the stage on which this

bill is being set, probably ending with the firing of two school boards

in this province.

British Columbia is unique in its history. But you know, Mr.

Speaker, the recent history has not been like that. We saw a change of

Premiers last year which gave hope to this province for its education

system. We saw promises that appeared so sincere, about the desire for

cooperation — an end to confrontation and development of

consensus. We saw this being a major issue in the last provincial

election. We saw a hope developing in the public school system. It was

quiet.

There was no controversy. There was no change. There was no chaos there such as we've seen previously.

The stage on which this legislation is being set is a long period of

chaos and confrontation. We saw the briefs to the Labour minister,

unprecedented I would think in British Columbia history, where the

employer and the employee groups submitted virtually identical briefs

to the Labour minister on the teacher collective bargaining process in

this province.

The signs of hope for the future were there. We had a backdrop of

five years of confrontation and chaos, and then all of a sudden a

period of hope. After all this time, with that hope being there, now we

see Bill 20 being introduced right in the middle of negotiations.

I think if we have learned one thing in this province in the last

ten years, we have learned that confrontation doesn't work. If we care

about our school system and the children in that school system in this

province, then I don't think governments have to bludgeon. They don't

have to use the heavy hand. They don't have to even impose. And they

certainly don't have to ram down the throats of people in the school

system. There are constructive alternatives. There is the ability to

work together for the good of children in this province. There is the

ability to try some positive cooperation, as we did in the early

retirement incentive plan. There is the opportunity for everybody to

not only respect the right of government to govern, but to have that

government respect the rights of the parties, to give them full

opportunity for consultation and to try to achieve consensus as a

result of that meaningful consultation.

I can't believe that the government sincerely believes that the

people with whom we trust the lives of our young people are impossible

to work with, and yet that is the message that we get by the

introduction of this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some other business in the

Legislature at this moment, so I would like to move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

[12:00]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, by agreement I am going to

call resolution 52 standing in the name of the hon. Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and discuss that. It's

timely today in view of the march for peace that is happening tomorrow,

I understand, in Vancouver and probably throughout other cities and

communities in our province.

The resolution is: "Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly

recognize the horrors of nuclear war and holocaust, and urge all world

governments to increase their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and

to reduce and finally eliminate nuclear weaponry."

We must recall that 42 years ago this August 6, in 1945, the world

witnessed the beginnings of a new and terrifying era, which perhaps

could be the beginning of the end of a civilization, at that time

employing a nuclear device with its purpose to win and terminate a

world war. But it was not until many years after that explosion, that

event, that it began to register with people as to what really had been

done and what had been set in motion and just how and when — if, indeed its frightening and frightful consequences could ever be checked.

[ Page 782 ]

In general terms, people of the world have divided essentially into

three camps or some combination of each on this issue: those who are

convinced that everyone eventually will be destroyed through the use of

nuclear weapons; those who believe no one would ever be insane enough

to initiate a thermonuclear conflict; and those who believe that every

effort has to be expended to end the nuclear arms race and reduce to

eventual elimination all nuclear weaponry.

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious concern to all citizens of the world.

One hates to be glib on a serious subject, but if we recall a comment

by the former Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Garde Gardom, he

said that it's like two men standing in a pool of gasoline. One has

five matches, one has six matches, and they're fighting over who has

the most power.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think we have some optimism, particularly in the last year with

negotiations we and the world have watched. We are introducing this

motion at a time of increasing optimism in the arms question. Both the

U.S.S.R. and the United States have begun to adopt new attitudes of

conciliation in key areas, and we have seen progress begun in both

short-range and intermediate-range missile talks. At such a time, we as

Canadians have a tremendous opportunity to assist in the successful

conclusion of these negotiations by contributing responsibly, using our

strengths as a nation and as a people. Canadians hold a great deal of

respect in world forums for our calm and reasoned moral suasion.

Through resolutions such as the one before us today, our voice can be

added to those of all individuals throughout the world calling for a

better peace.

Recognizing that the imbalance in conventional forces is a factor

that cannot be overlooked in reaching the goal we all desire, the

elimination of the nuclear threat to ourselves and to the human race,

we cannot stop in our search for alternatives. The creativity and

ingenuity of our species for peace as well as war must be greater

advanced and cultivated. We should not forget the lessons of history,

but at the same time we must clearly understand the unprecedented

threat to humanity's survival as humanity. The government of British

Columbia welcomes signs of new and innovative proposals to deal with

the critical question of verification, which is a necessary requirement

for the negotiation of a meaningful treaty, and it is with pride that

we understand that the federal government has become a leading nation

on this vital question.

British Columbians in their thousands have demonstrated repeatedly

and will continue to demonstrate, as tomorrow will no doubt indicate,

how vitally concerned we are with the preservation of humanity and the

reversal of the nuclear arms race. We applaud their sincerity and their

courage. The race we must all enter is the race for peace. This is a

call to and from all the people of goodwill and righteousness of

purpose in every country right across the globe. Accordingly, Mr.

Speaker, I move the motion.

MR. ROSE : I'm pleased to rise and second the motion. I'm

sorry that my response won't be clothed in such elegant language as the

hon. government House Leader's, but I wasn't aware that the matter was

likely to come up this morning. But I think it's appropriate that it

does. I'll speak very briefly, because my colleague from Victoria would

like to have a few words as well.

I echo the minister's statements on the optimism that appears to be

in the atmosphere today in talks between the Americans, the Russians

and the European allies of each about reducing the medium-range

missiles in Europe. It seems the height of lunacy to have nuclear

warheads numbering in the tens of thousands, enough to kill us all 45

times; once would be enough for me. The threat of nuclear holocaust is

certainly disturbing to children, and there have been recent

psychological studies showing that many of them are extremely fearful.

This perhaps leads to more than frustration — hopelessness, as a matter of fact.

We're reminded that even low levels of nuclear contamination can

cause permanent injuries and cancer. We know that veterans of the

Canadian Chalk River spill . . . . I suppose the most celebrated one is

Bjarnie Paulson, who has his body maimed and his life shortened because

of working around even a low-level nuclear plant. We don't really know

what the outcome will be from such accidents as Chernobyl or Three Mile

Island — or even from Hanford, which is just to the south of Spokane.

We are concerned about it. We do believe that there should be a

nuclear-free zone. We're disturbed that Star Wars, which is being

mooted as a protective device against an attack by America's enemies,

will only stimulate a further arms race, and we hope that isn't going

to happen. We hope that someone is going to talk a little sense into

the American President, who feels that perhaps a nuclear war could be

winnable.

Mr. Speaker, this is very much like Motion 2, which is standing in

the name of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He calls on us to

resolve "that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia request the

Canadian government to urge the United States and the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics, in the name of all humanity, to intensify their

efforts to achieve mutual and verifiable nuclear arms reductions

through the Geneva negotiations." We echo that here. Motion 52 did

that, because we know that regardless of the passion we indulge in, our

debates on education or labour or finance or anything else are really

meaningless if there's no tomorrow.

MR. BLENCOE : It's a great honour and privilege to stand this

morning and support, along with my colleague on this side and the

government House Leader, this resolution. I don't think there is any

question that this is the number one issue facing not only British

Columbians and Canadians, but the entire world. There is no other

greater issue today. We are, I suppose, talking about the very survival

of our world as we know it. I think all of us recognize, too, that

people in all countries feel extremely frustrated when they see that

their governments seem to be out of step with the desire of the world.

Many times there are issues that governments take a position on that

they feel are in the best interests of society or the world. We

constantly see in this issue people by the millions expressing the

desire for world peace and nuclear disarmament, yet for various reasons

we continue to arm and get bigger and bigger, and the ability to

obliterate our world becomes larger.

I think it's extremely important that those powerful decision-makers

at long last start to hear the words and the desires of ordinary people

who want desperately to end the nuclear madness in our world. Here in

B.C., thousands of British

[ Page 783 ]

Columbians in various ways have expressed their

views on this very important topic. Tomorrow, thousands will walk for

peace. British Columbia and British Columbians are probably the leaders

in this country in terms of numbers who walk for peace; but also, local

governments across this great province have put this item on the agenda

by nuclear disarmament referendums. Today, 60 percent of the population

of British Columbia live in nuclear weapons free zones. That's 1.6

million people who, through their government, have expressed in their

own way the desire to live in a nuclear weapons free world.

I understand there are those who have brought this to the attention

of the Premier. All we can say on this side is that we support the

Premier. We urge the Premier to support their desires when declaring

British Columbia a nuclear-free zone. This issue is way beyond any

partisan issues, and we on this side will help the Premier in any way

we can to bring a decision on this critical issue to declare B.C. a

nuclear-free zone. Canadians are, I think, asking governments to stand

up for a nuclear weapons free zone in Canada; to stand up against

strategic defense initiatives, Star Wars; to stand up for a worldwide

freeze on nuclear weapons and a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Canadians desire an end to cruise missile testing in this country. It's

time for an independent foreign policy on this issue, time for all

nations to renounce first use of nuclear weapons.

We desire — Canadians desire — a nuclear-free and

independent Canada. Canadians in their thousands are sending messages

not only to their own governments, but to governments around the world,

that they care desperately about this issue; that they hope those

governments, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, that

are in positions to make important decisions for our future will heed

the words and the desires of Canadians and millions of others who want

peace and tranquillity in our society.

There is hope today. There is renewed interest, particularly in the

Soviet Union. I think Canada, through its federal and provincial

governments, should urge our friends to the south to grasp that chance

and once and for all attain a comprehensive nuclear ban, disarmament in

a major way, so that people in the world will know, and their children

will know, that we're going to be safe for a long, long time. Our side

of this House will unanimously endorse this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, I will read the motion: "Be it

resolved that this Legislative Assembly recognize the horrors of

nuclear war and holocaust, and urge all world governments to increase

their efforts to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally

eliminate nuclear weaponry."

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just before moving adjournment, I'll

advise the House that Monday and maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, we'll be

continuing debate on Bill 20. It may not take long, but then it may

take some time. One never knows. With that, I wish you one and all a

very happy weekend.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:14 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada