1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1359 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Competence of employees of Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Barnes –– 1359

Mr. Lauk

Unemployment Action Centres grant. Mr. Parks –– 1360

Mrs. Dailly

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 1360

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

section 6 –– 1361

Ms. Brown

On the amendment –– 1362

Ms. Brown

Division

On the second amendment –– 1363

Ms. Brown

section 25 –– 1364

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 1366

Division

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1366

Mr. Rose –– 1368

Mrs. Dailly –– 1373

Mr. Nicolson –– 1376

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1377

Division –– 1378

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1379

Mr. Cocke –– 1379

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1382

Tabling Documents.

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report.

Mr. Pelton –– 1383

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the

House to bid a very warm and cordial welcome to Mr. Maurice Copithorne,

who is the commissioner designate to Hong Kong. Mr. Copithorne is a

distinguished Canadian and British Columbia citizen.

MR. PASSARELL: In the gallery today, visiting us all the way

from Cassiar, British Columbia, the capital of the great white north,

are Mr. and Mrs. Bill Deline and their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Ken

Frenette. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a law

school classmate of mine during the sixties, who practised law in

Prince George and is now practising in North Vancouver, and who is

politically active and a former alderman for the district. I'd like the

House to welcome Jim Poynter.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today are three visitors from

Victoria: Jack Scott, business manager of the painters' union, Ben

Fleming of the bricklayers' union and Chris Jones of the B.C. and Yukon

building trades council. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a

very hard-working young lady from the constituency of Kamloops. She is

vice-president of the Social Credit executive committee, a First

Citizens' Fund committee member, and is very active in the B.C. Native

Women's Society. I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Roberta

MacDonald.

Oral Questions

COMPETENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BARNES: It's with regret that I must pose a question to

the Minister of Human Resources. I must say that I'm disappointed at

having to do so. It has been widely reported that she has described

individuals in her ministry as "bonkers" and questioned whether they

are emotionally stable. My question to the minister is: does she have

specific examples to back up her charges that certain members of her

staff are emotionally unstable and unable to cope with the stresses of

the job?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for the question, Mr.

Speaker, and he does not have to do so with regret. I'm always pleased

to have a question from that member.

I want to respond to the question attributable to me. The quotation is correct,

Mr. Speaker, and perhaps a little expansive in terms of the actual meaning of

the word "bonkers." It was a slang expression; it was a very broad

statement about a very tiny group of people. I'm very proud of the people

in my Ministry of Human Resources and I have said so on many an occasion. They've

had a very difficult two years to go through, two years where the international

recession has hit the province and their particular communities and offices

very, very hard. In the past year and a half in this House we have even been

told that there would be huge line-ups outside of the Ministry of Human Resources.

This has not come to pass. They've handled their jobs in an exemplary manner.

But what really has disturbed me over the past few weeks and I would like the

member to understand this....

The statements attributable to MHR employees, only a few of them

attributable to those that have been made by them, have not been fair

to the many good people who work in the Ministry of Human Resources,

because it blankets all of them with being unable to address their

responsibilities on behalf of the taxpayer who pays the bill for those

employees. There are a handful of employees, unlike in most of the

other ministries which have laid off staff, who have been very vocal in

their statements against their employer and the taxpayers of the

province. They are casting an image of being out of control of their

own destiny. Considering that these are people who have to serve the

people of the province who are in grave trouble — those who have been

out of work, lost their jobs and their businesses — I suggest that that

puts a very bad point of view on all of the ministry which is unfair

and unwarranted for a ministry that has handled the recession in an

exceptional way.

MR. LAUK: The words that the minister used to describe her

employees in the ministry — and I take it, seeing her last answer, in

response to those employees, some of whom have protested the firings

and the cutbacks in services to children and people.... The words that

the minister used are "emotionally unstable" and "bonkers." Those are

slanderous terms. Is the minister prepared to name people or identify

people who are so emotionally unstable they cannot work in the ministry

properly?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the question is no. I would not take legal advice from the member who has just posed the question.

MR. LAUK: Any right-thinking and reasonable person would

describe that vicious attack on those employees as a slander and

everyone in this House knows it. I ask the minister one more time: is

she prepared to name people or retract those outrageous allegations

against those employees?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to retract her allegations that her employees are emotionally unstable?

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I never made the statement

that my employees are unstable, nor did I attribute my remarks to all

of my ministry staff. I will not apologize to that member for any

statements I have made. I am very proud of the ministry staff, and I

have said that on many an occasion. I have seen, in this past few

months, where we have had to cancel some programs, where we have given

an opportunity for deployment within the ministry.

[ Page 1360 ]

Those ministry staff people who have understood the programs and

have understood the reason for layoffs have acted in a reasonable

manner, like those members of the IWA and those employees of department

stores who have been given their cancellation notices with two weeks'

notice. The members of our ministry have been given four and a half

months' notice, Mr. Speaker, which is about four months longer than

most. In that four and a half months' notice, they are given the

opportunity for deployment to other vacancies in my ministry.

I suggest that the ministry's dealing with those people who have had

to have notices of termination has been very well done. I reiterate

that the very few who have made it difficult for the many have frankly

been very much out of order, I feel. There have been public statements

that have been made, and in the same vein that they have been made in

generalities, I will make the same general statement.

MR. LAUK: The minister now chooses to answer the political

criticism of the legislation politically. That's fine. The minister has

been reported — and has as yet not denied this — as describing these

people as emotionally unstable. In other words, anyone with a political

criticism in the civil service is described as emotionally unstable.

That's Soviet-style politics, if I've ever heard anything of the kind.

Any hon. minister would retract those statements in this House today.

It's a dishonourable thing to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACTION CENTRES GRANT

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour.

Whereas it would appear that one can reach the inescapable conclusion

that $600,000 of federal government money initially targeted for the

B.C. Federation of Labour for the most honourable unemployment

counselling service has seen fit to be tunnelled to Operation

Solidarity, and

whereas it has also become blatantly clear that some of

those funds have found their way into political purposes, it would

appear to me that such action is tantamount to an unfair labour

practice. I wonder if the Minister of Labour has seen fit to refer that

matter to the Labour Relations Board for an adjudication.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that's an interesting

thought. It is one which I hadn't given any consideration to up to this

point, but I certainly will, having been asked by that member. I'd be

very happy, Mr. Speaker, to write to the chairman of the Labour

Relations Board and ask him whether or not, in his opinion, this matter

comes within his jurisdiction. In addition, having just thought about

this matter for a moment, I would also undertake to that member to, in

my position as the minister responsible for employment as well, write

to the federal minister responsible for employment and ask him to give

us assurances that none of that money will be going for political

purposes, but rather for helping the unemployed, or that it will be

withdrawn. Otherwise it remains nothing but a cruel hoax for those

people who have no jobs.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Were some of the unemployment centres set up prior to the May 5 election?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that the member address that to the federal minister responsible.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. In view of

the fact that the minister has stated that these have been set up on a

political basis, because we have not realized — or those connected with

them — that we lost the election, it is quite obvious that he was aware

that they were set up before. Is that correct?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm aware that they

were set up before. I have not said that they were set up on a

political basis. What I said is that the $600,000 which is now being

funded is for political purposes. Having watched on television people

preparing material for Solidarity in the offices which are being funded

with the $600,000, I can only conclude that if it walks like a duck and

quacks like a duck, there's a pretty good chance that it's a duck.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to follow the expert on that subject.

I want to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary.

Whereas Mr.

James Anderson, president of McKim Advertising, announced yesterday, we

find in the Globe and Mail , that McKim has been appointed as

agency of record for the provincial government despite continuing

investigation, will the minister advise us why this announcement came

from the company and not from the minister, who has been asked for this

information for over a month?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't be responsible for McKim Advertising's press announcements.

MR. COCKE: You hired them. Mr. Speaker, he hired them over a month ago — and he can't be responsible for them.

Will the minister explain why an agency involved in laundering

accounts and maintaining secret slush funds with taxpayers' dollars has

been offered this plum contract worth $17 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The question as stated is out of order, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the president of McKim Advertising

said yesterday: "We are accountable to our client in everything we do.

Everything we have done has been authorized by the client." I'm

pointing at the client.

Has the minister determined which of his colleagues in government

authorized the laundering of accounts and unauthorized spending of

public funds?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a fairly serious accusation that the

member for New Westminster is making. It's one which I think he

shouldn't be making as lightly as he is. It's one that hasn't been

substantiated. I'm ashamed, for this House, of that member making such

outrageous and irresponsible statements in this House.

MR. COCKE: In that case I will direct the question to the Attorney-General, who probably understands this a little bit

[ Page 1361 ]

better. In view of the shocking revelation by the president of McKim Advertising that everything was authorized....

Don't forget that whether this is illegal, immoral or unethical is

not the question; the question is that it was very much a deviation

from the normal course of government. Has the Attorney-General decided

to extend the police investigation into the executive council of

government?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't direct police investigations and tell

them where they should go or where they should look. Neither would I

expect that the member opposite, when a police investigation is going

on, would assume for himself the role of prosecutor, judge and jury

until that investigation is complete.

MR. HOWARD: I rise pursuant to provisions of standing order

35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for discussing a

definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the revelation

that B.C. Timber has been buying carload lots of lumber in the cash or

spot market that is produced by other than B.C. Timber employees. It

has also been buying carload lots of lumber in the futures market, thus

committing itself to purchase in the future lumber produced by other

than B.C. Timber employees.

Further, by not fully utilizing the licences given it under the

Forest Act of B.C., B.C. Timber is thereby refusing to employ B.C.

workers to log and manufacture forest products, while at the same time

keeping control, with the acquiescence of the Minister of Forests, of

our forest land in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as has been done in the past, I

will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House with

a response, without prejudice, to the member's submission.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in second reading on this bill I

pointed out to the Attorney-General that

section 6, I thought, ought to

be amended, and in that regard have prepared an amendment which I'm

going to submit to the House. But first of all, maybe I should repeat

some of the comments I made at that time. It has to do with exemptions,

because what this

section does is give the registrar extraordinary

powers in terms of deciding what should be exempted from publication in

the Gazette .

The minister, in introducing this legislation, told us that the

legislation was simply implementing recommendations brought in by the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada. But this is not one of the

recommendations. It actually goes further than the recommendation,

because the recommendation said that any decisions of this nature

should be the responsibility of the elected member the legislator, and

not of the registrar. However, we see in

section 6 — and I gather that

the Attorney-General is looking for his copy of the bill.... Part of

section 6, where the registrar is given the powers which the Uniform

Law Conference of Canada recommended should rest with the minister

responsible, with the legislator.... Could you explain why the decision

was made to pass that power on to the registrar, counter to the

recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I really think I dealt with this

yesterday in closing second reading. You raised the identical point

there. It just doesn't, to my mind, make sensible administrative or

legislative sense to have a minister or an elected official charged

with the decision as to whether every piece of impedimenta that might

accompany something that meets the keyword test of a regulation should

be filed with this official or not. There are a whole host of documents

that might be part of a regulation which might well be available at

some other public place. It might consist of some kind of a city map or

some kind of a city directory. But if you're going to have to file all

these with a registrar, surely the person to make that kind of decision

is a person who inspects the proposed regulation and who also has the

authority to keep that regulation, and who can then decide whether, in

the interests of accommodating the public, reasonable storage and so

on, this included piece of impedimenta should in fact be filed as part

of the document with the registrar or be permitted to be incorporated

and referred to as being somewhere else. You and I don't agree on this

and, I guess, the uniformity committee thought that the decision should

be left in the hands of the responsible minister. But the registrar

seemed to us to be a person better able to make that kind of decision.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Well. It's not simply a matter of the

Attorney-General disagreeing with my position, Mr. Chairman. The

Attorney-General is also disagreeing with the position of the committee

which was struck by the Uniform Law Conference, a committee which had

three representatives from British Columbia sitting on it, as I

mentioned yesterday: Allan Roger, Herb Thornton and George Macauley.

It's not just a matter of simple impedimenta — or whatever the word is

that the Attorney-General used. There are some pretty serious kinds of

issues involved in this exemption section, such as making a decision as

to whether or not something should be published because it is unduly

expensive. That is not the responsibility of the registrar. That should

be the responsibility of the minister responsible. Now the committee

met, in its infinite wisdom, and surely the Attorney-General is not

saying that his one head is better than their six or seven or eight or

nine heads, as the case may be. Their recommendation was very clear.

They took into account all of the statements mentioned by the

Attorney-General and they disagreed. I wouldn't like the impression to

be left with the

[ Page 1362 ]

House that this is simply a disagreement between

the Attorney-General and me. They were very clear in their

recommendation that decisions on the filing of regulations were

decisions that should be left with the regulator, not the registrar.

They deliberately used those words: "not the registrar." The

Attorney-General has not given us a clear reason as to why he is going

counter to the recommendations of the committee of the Uniform Law

Conference.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm introducing an amendment, which says, for

section 6(l): "....by deleting the word, 'registrar' and substituting

the word 'minister.'" What that amendment is going to do is place the

responsibility for making these decisions with the person the Law

Conference, after deliberations — and, I must say. the deliberations

started in 1980 and went right through until 1981, so it was not an

overnight decision.... They had some time to think about it. The

decision of the Attorney-General to slough off this responsibility onto

the registrar is just not good enough.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have thought that if the member had

put such an amendment on the order paper some time ago while this bill

languished, and if she had addressed the amendment earlier.... One of

the difficulties in doing it ad hoc now is that not only do you not

give very much notice of it but it's not even in an acceptable form

because you're going to have to make your amendment to subsections

(1) and (3) to be consistent. I'm not trying to be pedantic; I'm just

helping out. It would give you time to give you maybe the kind of

response that you want.

I've had to deal with it from the basis of my own experience with

this documentation and also with my own experience in the kinds of

things that come across the desks of ministers. I appreciate that a

uniformity committee looked at this and that we had representatives on

there. I don't know how they broke down on the issue. With due respect,

I'm not convinced at this stage, hon. member — I guess I could be

convinced, but I'm not convinced right now — that this is an

appropriate power that should be or has to be exercised by a minister.

The statutes of this province are full of things that are delegated

to ministers and to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that maybe

should be in other hands. You create enormous logjams on the desks of

ministers, when you have someone in the field who is readily familiar

with these documents and can protect the public interest and make these

decisions, which are really decisions on the basis of convenience,

where a document, a plan or a photo is going to be located. They're not

decisions to exclude them from part of the regulation. They're

excluding them from publication in a formal way but not from

publication as to where they're available for perusal.

So your amendment doesn't convince me. I just invite you next time,

if you have an amendment like that, which seems to be well-intentioned

and serious, just to put it on the order paper a little earlier or

bring it to my attention a little earlier.

MS. BROWN: Surely the Attorney-General is not serious. The

Attorney-General is blaming me as the critic for the fact that he has

introduced a piece of legislation which is flawed. Surely he is not

serious.

Let me bring to the Attorney-General's attention page 177 of the

report of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. In case you can't

remember, Mr. Chairman, in introducing this bill the Attorney-General

went to great lengths to tell us that the bill was simply to implement

recommendations brought down by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

This document was introduced in August 1981; we are now in September

1983. So the Attorney-General had ample time to look at those

recommendations.

To quote from page 177 dealing with registrations and exemption from registration:

"The committee also recommends a discussion by the conference

of that power" — talking about exemptions — "having regard to possible

abuses of the power. It may be preferable only to permit the exercise of the

exempting power in specific cases such as those involving the adoption of codes

without more, or the designations of areas etc. on complicated or unwieldly

maps that constitute or form part of a regulation. However, the decision not

to require registration of a regulation should not be a decision to be made

in any case by the registrar."

The committee was absolutely clear and firm on that point.

What the Attorney-General has done is to go further. The

recommendation about exemption from registration concentrated on

unwieldly maps. The registrar has gone further and included "unduly

expensive." That's an additional power not in the recommendation which

the minister has taken on and deliberately countermanded the

recommendation of the committee, which is very clear: that the decision

should not be made by the registrar.

Surely the Attorney-General is not saying that he would have been

willing to consider this if I had made the suggestion to him earlier.

He's had the report of this conference since August 1981; this is

September 1983. He has had two years, and now he is telling the

Legislature that he hasn't considered it because I did not put this

amendment on the order paper a couple of days ago. Surely the

Attorney-General jests. He could not be serious that he is giving this

unwarranted power to the registrar despite the recommendations of the

conference, which said it is open to abuse. Even when the minister has

it, it is open to abuse, but he is giving this power to the registrar,

expanding the power to include decisions about a matter being unduly

expensive, simply because I did not put an amendment on the order paper

two days ago. Now that's giving me more power than I even dreamt I had.

If the minister is willing to accept my recommendation, why doesn't

he just hoist this

section and take some time to read the report which

he has had on his desk since August 1981? Speak to the three B.C.

representatives on that committee. This is definitely opening to abuse,

Mr. Chairman, all manner of issues, to allow the registrar to decide

that something should not be published in the Gazette because it is too expensive. Too expensive for whom?

Mr. Speaker, I have amended my amendment to include both

section 1 and

section 3, and I would like to table the second one now.

MR. SPEAKER: We can only deal with one amendment at a time, hon. member. Shall the first amendment to

section 6(

l) pass?

[ Page 1363 ]

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

NAYS — 24

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Michael

Pelton

A. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

section 6.

MS. BROWN: I think, Mr. Chairman, I've already filed my second amendment with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: It's for

section 6(3), which, in effect, does

exactly the same thing that

section 6(

l) does. I just think I should

bring to the attention of the Attorney-General that under the present

Regulation Act the amendment which I introduced is really already in

effect —

chapter 361,

section 3(3): "....in the opinion of the

minister...." These powers to exempt exist. I am really not clear as to

why the minister is delegating this power to the registrar — a

non-elected person — not just the powers he had but the additional

power of making a decision about costs. In the old Regulation Act not

even the minister had the power to make a decision about cost. Now he's

adding that to the responsibilities and delegating it to a non-elected

person. This is open to abuse. There is absolutely no way that this

House can question that person as to the decisions she makes as

registrar. That's the reason I am moving this amendment. I have a more

neatly typed

section here which I can file with the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll just speak briefly to the neatly typed

second amendment. The safeguards are really there. I think the member

envisages abuses under the carpet. The registrar, in making that

exemption under subsection (3), has, of course, to publish in the Gazette

the place where the exempted part of the regulation can be inspected.

So if it is a plan or a photo or a display or a model or something

else, there has to be a place where it can be inspected, and there has

to be inspection. I don't see where the abuses that this member

envisages can possibly creep in. If a registrar decides that it is

going to be a huge expense to include that in the place where the

document is filed as an exhibit, surely that's a decision that should

be made based on the space limitations that this official has and what

is reasonable, and it should not always be coming in an individual case

to the desk of a minister. Subsection (3) does provide a safeguard for

that. I think we've truly improved the act over what was recommended by

the commission.

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify, Mr. Chairman. The

Attorney-General keeps saying that I'm being paranoid, to paraphrase

his words. This is the recommendation of the committee. It's not my

idea. It's not an original thought on my part. I'm simply saying that

there was a national committee which was given the responsibility to

study this question, and their recommendation was that it was a

responsibility which should rest with the minister — probably based on

the assumption that the minister could be questioned by members of this

House as to why a decision was made not to file a regulation,

whereas

with a non-elected person there is no opening, there is no opportunity

for that person to be questioned. I just want to clarify that that's

not my idea. The committee was totally opposed to this power being

vested in the registrar, so much so that they did not omit to mention

it but made deliberate mention of it here on page 177 of their report,

where they said that the decision should not be made in any case by the

registrar. That was the report of the committee; it's not my original

idea.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not going to continue this response back

and forth. I don't think I can add any more to the member, except that

while we take into account the recommendations of committee, we don't

always follow them slavishly and totally. The major thrust of the

uniformity commission was that we would have a new approach to

regulations, based on a key word instead of a legislative intent test,

and that was carried out. But I certainly concede that we didn't do

every precise thing that that committee recommended to us, nor would we

always.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. I don't want to carry on this

discussion either. I'm just asking for an explanation: why has the

minister decided to delegate this authority to a non-elected person who

cannot be questioned on the floor of this House by the elected members

as to whether or not a decision made not to publish a regulation was in

the best interest of the general public? Why was that decision made?

HON. MR. SMITH: That official, the registrar, is someone whom

I designate, who reports to me and who is responsible to me, and I'm

responsible to this Legislature and to the public. If there's going to

be a question, what on earth is the question going to be? "Tell me, Mr.

Registrar, why you didn't file the Bronx telephone directory as part of

the exhibit to this regulation." Why do you want to ask that question?

The point is: can you go and find that directory? Can you go and

readily inspect it?

MS. BROWN: Well, of course that is not the question. The

question is: why was a decision made not to file a regulation — because

it was considered to be too expensive, or for what other reason? If

that's a responsibility that the minister can handle, why has the

minister decided to delegate it?

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1364 ]

Sections 6 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

MS. BROWN: This is one

section where the decision has been

made to eliminate proclamation, which is the final opportunity that the

Lieutenant-Governor has to act on behalf of the people, and instead to

allow the final decision to be made by the cabinet.

I spoke at great length yesterday about the dangers inherent in such

a practice. In responding, the Attorney-General decided that the best

way to deal with that was to use ridicule. He proceeded to ridicule the

Lieutenant-Governor and the role of the Lieutenant-Governor in our

parliamentary process. I certainly did not indicate for one minute that

each person in British Columbia should go, cap in hand, to the gates of

Government House and appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor. However, if

things became bad enough that that were necessary, then there is

absolutely no reason why they shouldn't, but I certainly hope that I

would not live long enough to see that day come to pass. As I mentioned

yesterday, it's a part of our tradition going back to 1867. Although it

has not been exercised since 1907....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, '71.

MS. BROWN: Nineteen seventy-one? Maybe Saywell is incorrect;

he's the person whose year I'm quoting. Even he made a mistake.

Certainly I know that during the time of this government in office,

there have been occasions when we in the opposition have had to appeal

to the Lieutenant-Governor and ask that he intervene on behalf of the

best interests of the people of British Columbia. However, I suggested

that maybe this

section should just be deleted, and I notice that the

Attorney-General has not made any effort to do that. There is very

little more that I can do or say about this, except to say that I think

it's a dangerous precedent, that it cuts off the final avenue of appeal

for the people of British Columbia and that it brings us one step

nearer to being a republic.

[3:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: I am comforted to learn that the member does

not propose to go and visit those Rockland gates on proclamations and

orders-in-council. It was to try and preserve and maintain the dignity

of that office that I made those remarks. The dignity, powers and

prerogatives of that office don't go to refusing to sign proclamations

and orders-in-council, and the authorities that the member is concerned

about and refers to in Saywell have to do with the assenting or

reservation of bills. All the precedents that are contained therein

relate to that, where there still is a residual prerogative. I think if

she reads that book carefully she'll find that it has nothing to do

with the ministerial act of signing pieces of parchment. The poor old

honourable proclamation and its disappearance will save space in the Gazette ,

time and money, and will be a blow, I'm sure, to the pulp and paper

industry. It will be much lamented from the standpoint of tradition,

but it is not going to impinge upon the real constitutional authority

of His Honour.

MR. HOWARD: There is a chance here to save a lot of

taxpayers' money. All you've got to do is maintain the office and get

rid of the person in it. I don't know how much money we spend in

keeping the old boy up in Government House there, and now he's not

going to be doing anything except putting on dances, parties, garden

parties and that sort of thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, all those remarks are quite unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because one does not make any reference to His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that is in fact an improper reference,

which the Chair feels the hon. member is making.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if the Chair feels that those are improper

references, then I wouldn't say that the Chair is in error, but I'm

saying that I did not phrase it so the Chair would fully understand. I

was saying that what the minister is advocating here is that if the

office is the important thing, then we don't need the person in the

office, and we could save the taxpayers an awful lot of money by

getting rid of the person.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we should be very clear on this. I am

going to raise a point of order under standing order 40(l). "No member

shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty...nor of the

Lieutenant-Governor...." I would ask the member to withdraw those parts

of his remarks that referred to the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order under standing order 40(

l) is well taken. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it said: "No member shall speak

disrespectfully of her Majesty...." I did not do that. The second part

says: "...nor of any of the royal family...." I did not do that.

"...nor of the Governor-General or person administrating the government

of Canada...." I did not do that. "...nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or

person administrating the government of this province.." I did not do

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the hon. member for Skeena and

the hon. members of this Legislative Assembly that another member has

brought it to the Chair's attention, and the Chair does agree that in

fact there was an imputation that was unparliamentary and not in

keeping with standing order 40(

l) as written. I will ask the hon.

member for Skeena to withdraw the remarks.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair had paid attention to my earlier remarks in detail, he would have found out that I did exactly that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. HOWARD: I did exactly that. It was only upon the raising

of the question by the Attorney-General — improperly, I submit —

attributing to me something that I did not say, that I felt occasion to

rise the second time and deny that I'd made any disrespectful remarks

about any those four categories of people.

[ Page 1365 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. On

section 25, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. HOWARD: The Attorney-General is trying to make a fool....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena is

stretching it some. I think the matter has been satisfied. The member

for Burnaby-Edmonds has been recognized.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. PARKS: Perhaps it was because of the far end of the room, but I did not hear the hon. member withdraw those remarks.

MS. BROWN: So you're deaf!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair....

MR. PARKS: Actually I suggested that I was at the far end of

the room and that I may not have heard those remarks if they were

withdrawn. I have just asked the Chairman whether or not he heard the

hon. member withdraw those remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Skeena, in speaking to the

request from the Chair, indicated that he meant no disrespect. The

Chair heard that clearly, and that satisfies the matter and satisfies

standing order 40(l).

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds on the subject of

section 25.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when this House

is victimized by the droll humour of the Attorney-General. It's never

funny either.

However, he says that that proclamation is simply a matter of

putting a signature on parchment and means absolutely nothing. The

Lieutenant-Governor always has the right to refuse to sign a document,

and I was not mistaking assent for proclamation. I know the difference

between proclamation and assent. The Lieutenant-Governor can refuse to

sign a proclamation document, so it's not just a document that means

absolutely nothing and will mean great savings for the pulp and paper

industry, etc., etc., as the Attorney-General said, trying to be funny.

It's more serious than that. A step is being removed. The final step is

being removed, and all the humorous attempts on the part of the

Attorney-General will not alter that simple fact. He's not going to use

humour to slough it off, or to try to build a smokescreen in front of

what he is doing. This is one more step in terms of concentrating power

in the hands of the cabinet, and one more step in the direction of

republicanism. That's what's happening here, and none of the funny

comments and unhumorous remarks of the Attorney-General can alter that

fact.

HON. MR. SMITH: Such a fundamental constitutional misconception flows

from the words of that member that you cannot just let it go. She does not understand

that His Honour, when deciding whether to sign a proclamation or an order-in-council,

acts on advice. He is not an independent monarch; he does not have all the powers

of Sir Francis Bond and others that are laid out in Saywell and other authorities.

She's misread those authorities. For her to suggest that he is an independent

monarch when it comes to signing and carrying out a ministerial act, which he

does on advice, to suggest that he does that without advice, and can do that

without advice, is to relegate us again to the status of pre-Confederation 1871.

She doesn't understand that, and I'm sorry that she doesn't, because

it's so fundamental to the present growth of responsible monarchic government.

She has to go back, I'm sorry to say, and re-read Saywell and try to understand

it, and not believe or encourage the notion to be abroad in the land that the

Lieutenant-Governor has that kind of discretion in those cases to act not on

advice but alone.

Also, her basic argument has to fall, because if the

Lieutenant-Governor did have a discretion not to sign a proclamation,

and if a proclamation was somehow a safeguard, by her argument he has

exactly the same discretion as to whether or not to sign the

order-in-council that brings the regulation into place. It's one less

document but the same safeguard.

MS. BROWN: I think the Attorney-General is of the opinion that I'm one of the students in his law class.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be.

MS. BROWN: No, not "should be" at all. He can be as

patronizing as he wants about this. I am quite capable of reading, and

I know that the Lieutenant-Governor works in consultation with cabinet;

but I also know that the Lieutenant-Governor can refuse to sign if that

is the Lieutenant-Governor's wish. If he wants to go from humour to

being patronizing, that's fine with me, but it's not going to change

the fact that a tradition is being eroded and taken away. That is

what's happening here.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[3:15]

Bill 31, Regulations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 1366 ]

YEAS — 27

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

Heinrich

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

McClelland

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 20.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 20, together with really

Bill 19, will have the same comments. It's nice to see that the hon.

member from Vancouver Centre has returned and is ready and in good form

for heckling today. The member.... Not too hard to start with....

Interjections.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has been recognized, I presume?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I was just waiting for things to settle down, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation which has been introduced was done so for the

express purpose of dissolving the three post-secondary councils, which

were created in 1978. As all members know, one of the functions of the

councils was to allocate provincial government funds to both colleges

and institutes in British Columbia.

As well as allocating funds, the councils — and the three, of

course, are the Occupational Training Council, the Academic Council and

the Management Advisory Council — did have some concerns with

curriculum, course content and the coordination of those courses,

particularly in areas of British Columbia where there are a number of

colleges.

I think members would recall the thrust of the throne speech, where two particular

goals were set out. One of these was the elimination of boards, agencies and

commissions where practical, and in this case we're referring to the three

councils, which, in fact, represented three boards. Probably one of the most

important items was the elimination of duplication of government activities,

of which there seems to be a great deal. It's estimated that with the elimination

of the goals the savings over a period of three years will be something in the

order of $2 million. The budgets for this year were something in the order of

between $600,000 and $700,000, and over three years $2 million is probably

a realistic estimate.

Probably, Mr. Speaker, there will be even a greater saving, although

indirect, in that it will result in the elimination of duplication of

work and the considerable amount of emphasis which colleges, their

boards and administrations placed upon presentations to the councils. I

will make some comments later on about the endless number of

presentations which were made and the frustration which really was

occasioned to each of the boards and their administration.

The councils were set up at a time when colleges in British Columbia

were in their formative years, and I think there was a great deal of

validity at the time. The obvious reason for setting them up was to

ensure that post-secondary education paths were clearly charted, and

for the most part they were.

It is the view of the government that at this time the work of the

councils has been essentially completed. I think we also have another

duty: that is, the utilization of those funds which are available and

to ensure that they are directed into the college and, more

particularly, into the classrooms. I note that the comment, at least in

the press, on Bills 19 and 20 — Bill 20 being the one before the House

at this time — has been negligible. Yes, there has been some comment,

but I would think really a lack of commentary by principals, boards,

even members of the councils, and to some degree — although I will put

a caveat on this comment — school boards. There seems to be

considerable support for the bill. I think it would be appropriate,

proper and in order, Mr. Speaker, that we should go on record, and

justifiably so, acknowledging the significant work that was done by

those people who were appointed to the councils, and their

administrators. They have served those councils, the boards, the

colleges and the institutes well. Their work has gone over a period of

five years and has provided a great deal of guidance to post-secondary

education that will help equip graduates from time to time.

During the formative years of colleges, and when you take into

consideration their geographical location within the province, you will

find that school districts were very helpful. Often the facilities

which were used by colleges during this period were owned and operated

by school districts. In addition to providing facilities, school

districts also assisted in raising capital requirements and were used

as an agency for capital requirements which now no longer exist. So

some years ago we not only found facilities owned by school districts

being used, but we also found a vehicle of the school district, its

administration, used for the purposes of generating funds. It was used

also as a taxing agency for a portion only of the operating accounts

required. In addition, they received administrative assistance from

school districts. I think all of that must be acknowledged.

In 1983 we find that 100 percent of all college funding is provided

by the provincial government. All members are aware of that, I think. I

think we can also look at the fact that most college campuses now, are

reasonably well supplied with their own permanent buildings. Our own

experience in our own ridings would bring that point home. I am not

saying they have totally adequate facilities, and of course we know

that it is a function of dollars. But they do, as I said earlier,

receive their operating funds directly from the province. So

[ Page 1367 ]

we've seen a change in the relationship between

colleges and school boards. Colleges have become entities in their own

right, and I think they should have the opportunity to function as

such. One of the thrusts of the government is to ensure a considerable

degree of autonomy for colleges. There are considerable administrative

burdens to be borne by them, and I think freedom and flexibility in

their operations should be encouraged.

The issue of school board appointees on college boards, I will tell

the members of the House, is the only item which has been raised with

me, and I have in fact received some correspondence from certain

districts on this issue. I have also had correspondence from some

trustees. I would also raise this matter in full disclosure with

members of the House: that it was an issue raised with me by the B.C.

School Trustees' Association. I can tell you it was also raised

directly with me as the MLA for Prince George North, covering School

District 57.

Interestingly enough, in my last meeting with the school board in my

riding, one of the members, a school board trustee who had spent many

years on the board of the College of New Caledonia, made a point. He

said, you know, when we had some problems with one of the communities

which the College of New Caledonia serves, instead of looking for a

school board appointee, what we did was strike up a liaison committee.

It resolved the problem.

It is our view that most of the rationale for having a school board

trustee or an appointee by the school district on the board of the

college is not really there any longer. I raise these points again.

College funding is now made totally by provincial government.

Facilities are pretty well all confined to the campus of each of the

colleges, and schools or school districts are no longer used as a

vehicle for raising either capital or operating expenses. In many

cases, elected trustees have been appointed, as I've mentioned, and

also school boards have made the appointee where someone did not wish

to serve. If I may just digress for a moment, it seems to me that the

task of trustees of school districts right now is significant. There's

a very onerous responsibility placed upon them. It was interesting to

note the letter published in the Vancouver Sun

— I believe it was last week — by a Vancouver school trustee, Graeme

Waymark. It was very clear that that trustee understood the task at

hand.

[3:30]

One of the concerns with respect to the position and the policy of

the government as set forth in the bill is that there are trustees or

school board appointees serving on college boards who do have a wealth

of experience. As a result of this bill some members in some areas of

British Columbia do feel that they will be pre-empted from having the

benefit of that knowledge and experience being available to the college

board. One of the functions of a college — and I suppose this comes to

surface and has significant importance in the interior and the northern

part of British Columbia and probably the northern two-thirds of

Vancouver Island — is that these people who in fact have spent this

time should really have the benefit of still continuing to serve. I

think with the liaison between colleges — and remember it is the

function of the boards of those colleges to liaise with all of the

communities surrounding the college location — that that line of

communication is still open and the falling back that you have to be an

elected trustee or school board appointee I don't really think is

persuasive.

When government makes appointments to the boards, we must take into

consideration the service which has been rendered by those who were

appointees.

We will take into consideration their experience and the work that they have done.

MR. LAUK: Filibuster.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't think so. This is not that at all.

I might point out to you that if you look at the Pacific Vocational

Institute in Vancouver and Burnaby, they've established six agreements

with, obviously, six school boards in the province, and a seventh

agreement with the city of Vancouver is now in progress. I understand

it's going to be executed very soon. The agreements that Pacific

Vocational Institute has are on the following districts: Langley,

Surrey, Delta, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Nanaimo. It's interesting to

note that the agreements contain two key provisions: firstly, provide

credit for high-school graduates applying for advanced programs offered

by PVI; secondly, to provide preferential placement for high-school

graduates of the school districts that have signed the agreement with

the institute. Students from each of the school districts receive

credit for training which has been covered in high-school programs by

starting at advanced levels. Those students will also be given

preferential placement in PVI programs to curtail any waiting period

between high-school graduation and entry.

Another item is that there are two other jurisdictions in Canada

which have college systems roughly equivalent to ours in British

Columbia; they are Alberta and Ontario. The reason that I raise this,

Mr. Speaker, is that their college boards do not have school board

appointees sitting on them. In fairness, I must point out that neither

Alberta nor Ontario have any history of the direct involvement by

school boards which was present in British Columbia during the

formative stages of college and institute development. In the United

States a number of jurisdictions have systems comparable to ours, and

the governing boards are entirely appointed by the state.

I have mentioned that our objective is to place on the board of each

college appointees who are resident in the community and who will be

very much aware of the demands placed upon the college by the citizens

residing in the geographical area served. When I make reference to the

citizens in the geographical area service, I mean the needs of those

people. We know the divergence of demands made on different parts of

British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Do all your speeches affect your colleagues that way?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm really not too concerned about that,

Mr. Member. After listening to the other side for two and a half

months. I want you to know that that is the most I've seen on the

opposition benches for some time. I want you to know that my colleagues

are well aware of what is in the paper, and they don't need to worry

about that. But I'm glad that you people are here and you are

understanding what's there. I thought that you wanted to be informed,

and you were coming in. I'm delighted to have your presence.

Interjection.

[ Page 1368 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, we can rattle a few sabres if you

wish, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. I thought perhaps you were

interested in some of the reasons that we are providing for you,

instead of the filibustering that I've been listening to. This is what

happens when you raise a few legitimate points. Now you're not happy

with that either. What do you want to play?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, you've

got a great sense of humour, and I'm glad you've honoured us with his

presence today. I know he seems somewhat lonesome without his seatmate

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I'll never forget the last time I was

standing. The two of them were together and it was very difficult. It

was a lot of fun, mind you, and I hope you had fun too.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have a number of briefs, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of councils,

including three submissions on legislation and four comments, which I

received in some detailed correspondence, on the five-year sunset

clause, which would encourage the direction in which the government is

moving. The College-Institute Educators' brief is dated May 4, 1982,

and I'll quote it. I think it's kind of neat. It says: "Eliminating the

councils is the option which has by far the most appeal. It would

significantly reduce the level of duplicate and triplicate reporting.

It would, we feel, be a major move to restoring clarity to a system

that is almost uniformly discerned as burdensome and confusing."

MR. LAUK: Do you want to take it as read?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pretty close.

Then, of course, if you want, the Council of Principals have made a

statement. The B.C. Association of Colleges have made a statement. The

Management Advisory Council even recommended its own demise. The last

item involves the conflict, which I'm not sure is too great an item,

but I don't think it should go unnoticed.

MR. LAUK: Try it on.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll try it on.

A number of school trustees are college employees. It could

conceivably happen that that college employee who is elected as a

trustee could then find his way back on the board. He can't find his

way back on the board, because he is precluded from doing so. But it

seems to me that if you are a college employee and the board has some

influence through its appointee or trustee on the board.... I just

wonder. I think we should remove any possibility of that happening.

MR. NICOLSON: It could happen now under

section 4.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not going to happen.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the five-year sunset

clause asks for review. We conducted the review and listened to all

those involved. The legislation contains an answer to their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lighten things up.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't intend to lighten things up. I thought

for a minute, though, the way the minister was going on, that he

intended to talk out his own bill this afternoon. It sounded like he

was designated speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was twelve and a half minutes.

MR. PASSARELL: That proves Einstein's theory of relativity — it seemed like three hours.

MR. ROSE: It seemed a lot longer to some of the listeners. I

liked the part where the provocation came in the banter from across the

floor. I think that was fairly interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this bill to take

"community" out of the community colleges act, because that's exactly

what this does. It seems to me that the whole tradition of the

community college movement in British Columbia, going back to the time

when it was really a concept articulated and pushed by a former

colleague of mine, Dr. Leonard Marsh.... The whole idea behind this was

to provide an institution between post-secondary level....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You haven't heard of Leonard Marsh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't he the sociology professor at UBC?

MR. ROSE: He was once, and he did all the early work on

community colleges. He was also a founding member of the League for

Social Reconstruction in the thirties and was interested in the Spanish

war as well. If you'd like a little bit more history, he was excellent

on the cello, but I'm quite sure that you wouldn't want to go....

MR. LAUK: He gave Jack a D in sociology.

MR. ROSE: Well, no, I don't think that the minister had

anything to do with Leonard Marsh, because he was an entirely different

man in terms of philosophy. He really believed in shared

decision-making, in spreading out and having an institute grow that

would perhaps be part academic and

part vocational in the local area,

to serve the local community in its diverse interests and needs and to

be managed and run, in terms of its policy, by members of the

community. That's why it was not called a junior college in British

Columbia, but a community college.

I think that what we've done is abandoned that. It's not just me or

some sort of pinko leftie that feels this way; I refer you to a

monograph by one Frank Beinder, who has had a distinguished record in

this province. In his monograph published in February 1982, he has this

to say about.... Oh, he has lots of things to say, but I would like to

quote from the conclusion of his monograph: "What we need for our times

are institutions providing access to widely diverse opportunities.

Great though undefined displacements resulting

[ Page 1369 ]

from economic and technological change are seen to

be inevitable. Our future will demand great flexibility of response if

we are to develop the necessary ability to recognize human potential in

a variety of appropriate ways."

Let me expand on that just briefly. What we hear from this

government is toying with the language of high-tech. We hear the

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

shouting from rooftops and beating his breast about the possibilities

of B.C. being the centre of some high-tech future, without ever

examining the social implications of high-tech: whether or not it's

necessarily appropriate for British Columbia; whether high-tech is

going to bring us a future of affluence and less arduous labour or

whether it's going to create a society which is dichotomized — a

society that will have a few highly skilled and highly paid workers at

the top and a lot of displaced drones working in cottage industries

somewhere at the bottom, with the ultimate complete elimination of the

middle class.

It seems that if you're going to face a future of uncertainty — and

certainly the kind of future I suggested in the dichotomy of a future

society is not inevitable — you are going to have to have people who

are flexible enough to adapt to whatever future may come along. You

can't do that unless people have an opportunity to have the most

modern, contemporary education possible. That isn't always possible

unless people are guaranteed access. So Mr. Beinder says what we need

for our time are institutions providing access to widely diverse

opportunities. He goes on to say:

"Twenty years ago British Columbians developed a new educational

concept. It was humane and yet pragmatic. It was oriented to the future. It

was good. Twenty years later it needs, perhaps, to be updated but not destroyed."

This part of the quote is particularly gripping:

"It is ironic to observe that it is not the institutions

but senior government which seems to be losing touch with staggering social

implications of change."

Faced with the staggering social implications of change, the response of this

government has been to shout restraint, to put more people out of work and onto

welfare, and at the same time centralize power more and more into its own hands.

[3:45]

That's our basic objection to the changes that have been proposed in

this legislation. When it comes right down to it, we object that

community access to representatives by community groups such as school

boards is going to be denied. Even if it is an indirect kind of

democracy — people are elected to school boards and then accepted on

the junior or community college boards — at least they're not outright

appointees who can be reliable in terms of their political outlook.

That's what we're concerned about. What we're concerned about as far as

the college boards and the changes.... Not the change from nine members

to five; that change doesn't trouble us greatly. Neither does it

trouble us greatly that the various councils and their duplicative

efforts have been changed and abolished. That doesn't bother us,

because I think that the minister is right on there. You can have and

have had a lot of difficulty in trying to sort out who is really in

charge and from which council colleges should take direction. I don't

think we have a substantial argument about that one.

But we have a substantial argument, Mr. Speaker, and an argument

that we feel very strongly about when it comes to the complete removal

of locally elected members from the boards of community colleges. The

minister says he hasn't had much static, although he admitted to some

on that score. Well, I've been getting letters. I've got a letter from

Alberni here that I could quote on that subject — if I could find it —

in which the correspondents objected strongly to the fact that they

would no longer have their own members represented on that board. The

minister receiving the letter, of course, wasn't the appropriate

minister. The appropriate minister is the Minister of Education. But it

is addressed to "Dr. Pat McGeer, Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C." and it's signed

by J.C. Wright, secretary-treasurer for the school trustees of district

70, Alberni. Mr. Wright says on behalf of his board:

"The board of school trustees wishes to go on record supporting the resolution of the North Island College council as follows:

"Whereas the terms of reference that created North Island

College demanded a close working relationship with school boards; and

whereas

the school districts within the geographical boundaries of North Island College

continue to share facilities...."

Here is a point that the minister made. Once upon a time he said that the schools

assisted the colleges greatly, but now it isn't the case anymore where it

is a matter for shared facilities. Obviously that doesn't apply to North

Island College, according to their letter. So that argument of the minister

is certainly not valid; it's a lot of hot air.

"...whereas the school districts within the

geographical boundaries of North Island College continue to share

facilities;

be it resolved that we protest the removal of school board

representation on the North Island College board."

I think that that kind of letter could be

duplicated many times. I don't have copies of all the correspondence

that came to the minister, but I do have copies of some of it.

Let me deal now with the three councils for a moment or two. The

idea of three councils is one which has come under a lot of criticism

over the years. I have a paper here written by Prof. Dennison of the

University of British Columbia, who is well-known for his interest

in.... As a matter of fact, he could be described as Leonard Marsh's

successor as professor of higher education or post-secondary education

in the faculty of education at the University of British Columbia. He

says:

"The existence and role of the provincial interbody —

that is, the council system — must be carefully evaluated. If the

advantages of the interbody idea, of freedom of institutions from

direct political control, of long-term coordinated planning independent

of changing government priorities, are considered to outweigh the

disadvantages — e.g., another level of bureaucracy, removal of

institutions from direct sources of funding, etc. — then a less diverse

council structure, with real independence through adequate staff

powers, needs to be created. One council or two with clearly defined

functions should be established."

The minister appears to be heading in that direction.

On some of the other concerns expressed by Prof. Dennison, however,

he is not so reassuring. "Freedom of institutions from direct political

controls," says Prof. Dennison. How can we be assured that this isn't

happening? The minister will appoint all the college board members. I'm

sure he will do it from those people who are considered reliable and

[ Page 1370 ]

friends of his own political party. Certainly the

idea of elected representatives seems to be out the window. The

minister will have a captive administration as a result. The minister

has even taken unto himself in this bill the power to determine what

courses will be offered by what colleges. He says, benignly, that it's

because he is concerned about overlapping and overspending. I'm not so

certain about that. I don't know that the minister needs all that

control. I think it should be up to the local community, even the

community of Prince George. Maybe, for instance, the members of that

community are interested in more academic courses. Sure, they're

offered elsewhere. Maybe the minister could point to studies, such as I

have here before me, that would indicate that, after all, a lot of

those people in Prince George who avail themselves of those after-work

courses do not transfer on to universities, and because they don't

transfer, the courses of an academic nature are useless. Therefore,

since they're offered somewhere else that year, we may not need to

offer them. Again, who is to check on the minister? I'm not kidding.

Does the minister not agree that he has now taken unto himself, in this

bill, the power to determine the course offerings of community

colleges? He doesn't shake his head or do anything. He sits there and

stares at the ceiling. Could the minister nod or give some sort of

approval?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Be nice!

MR. ROSE: Whether I'm nice or not, I would like to see

whether the minister agrees with the point that I'm trying to make that

the minister....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the member back from the wilds of the Transit Authority, or wherever he's been.

Mr. Speaker, I've made the assertion, and the minister said nothing

to deny it. He didn't nod his head; he just stared at the ceiling and

blinked his eye once like an iguana, but he actually didn't say

anything. The point that I tried to make, and he said was nonsense, was

the fact that he, under this bill, can go in and determine the nature

of the course offerings of junior colleges — known in British Columbia

as community colleges. He cannot deny that. He has total power over

that and over the appointment of the boards, so he has centralized all

the power into his own hands. Now if he decides to restrict the courses

and up the fees.... What he's done is mount a massive onslaught on the

access by students — and they're pounding on the doors at these places

— to these community colleges. To me that seems important enough to

debate seriously, and not to sit back and say nonsense.

I think all of us tend to clothe our motives in the most noble terms

possible, and I don't think the minister is any different from anyone

else on that score. But he can't get away from the fact that that's

what this bill does, and that's why we object to this bill. We don't

object to the fact that he takes three advisory councils and makes one

out of them, but what we are concerned about is that if he is pulling

the strings and those councils are merely puppets of the minister, then

they might as well not be there at all. They're merely a body to

distribute and administer funds, not to give advice on programs at all,

but to act at the behest of the minister and to be his puppets. That's

where we get off that one.

There are a number of things that we can say about community

colleges, because obviously they're filling a great need. There are

some fifteen of them and they seem to be extremely popular because

people don't have the mobility or the economic advantage which allows

them to attend a post-secondary institution, and, in many cases, many

of them don't want to. They don't want to go to a post-secondary

institution in any case — that is, one that's purely academic. They

want to go to something that will give them practical, immediate and

local opportunities. That's what we're concerned about when we see that

the minister has put himself through this piece of legislation in a

position to alter what has been our traditional approach to these

institutions without asking anyone, because he is the complete and

total czar of education for the province.

I'd like for a moment to review some of my main concerns about the

legislation in general. I suppose that our greatest concern is access.

I think there's not much point in having huge edifices, no matter how

conveniently located, if you can't get into them. One of the things

that has made our country and that of our neighbours to the south

strong is the fact that we have universal public education as part of

our tradition. It's part of our policy, and certainly it's been part of

the policy of this Social Credit government over the years, to improve

and increase access for all people to public institutions and

education. We haven't had a tradition of the private or elite school or

one in which we teach only those sons and daughters of the affluent.

We've felt that the greatest assistance to upward social mobility, the

ability of our society to compete in a complex culture, is due to the

fact that we have universal education. It didn't come easily.

[4:00]

About 150 years ago there was a great fight about whether or not we

should establish public education in Canada. It was said by the

critics: "It will teach people to be lazy. It will let parents be

irresponsible. They won't put aside any money for fees to send their

children to school. If people learn to read they might learn to read

not just the Bible, but all sorts of salacious material," delicious

salacious material, according to some. And it was actually considered

at one time to be a threat to godliness. I would like to say that we've

overcome that. But it's the same argument that is used against any

public innovation, such as medicare. The same arguments will be used

against any other kind of advanced social legislation too, by those

people who have that kind of mindset.

But what concerns us, in terms of access, is that over the years

there has been a continuous underfunding of post-secondary education. I

received material the other day which indicates that our province's per

capita contributions to its universities were second to last. Only

Prince Edward Island, practically the poorest province in Canada,

contributes less to post-secondary education than we do in British

Columbia. So while we have some magnificent institutions, we certainly

haven't put the effort — in terms of our GNP, or even in terms of a

proportion of our funds related to our population — as strongly,

compared to some other provinces. I think we're going to live to suffer

from that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We've seen just this year that there are severe cutbacks to student

assistance. Not only has the cut been about 40 percent; we've dropped

the budget of student assistance from something like $22 million down

to $14.6 million, or something. In addition to that, we've had a much

more severe kind of screening device for people to even be eligible for

student

[ Page 1371 ]

assistance, We've found, for instance, that part-time students are

no longer really eligible for student assistance, only the federal

portion. The provincial portion requires them to take an 80 percent

course load. What single parent is going to be able to do that? They're

not eligible. So here are single parents who really need an education —

or some retraining — to get back in the workforce, and they can't,

because they haven't time. Because of their household and family

commitments they can't take an 80 percent course load. "If you can't

take an 80 percent course load," says the minister of higher education,

"phut — no student loan for you." There are all kinds of phony things,

such as living at home and: "Did you get $600 from your parents or did

you work last summer?" These are all designed not to increase access,

Mr. Speaker, but actually to diminish the opportunities for young

people to go to school. All in the name of restraint, or budget-cutting.

Now, at the very time when fewer and fewer young people have an

opportunity to find employment — last month some 24 percent of those

under 24 were unemployed in British Columbia — where are they going to

go? They're going to say: "Look, I can't find any work, so I'm going to

use whatever opportunities I can in the time I have to upgrade my

education." Because even though they haven't had a lot of education,

those young people know that while the average for those under 24 is 24

percent unemployed, for those with post-secondary education it is only

8 percent. So you have three times the chance of being employed if you

have post-secondary or university education. So they're going to do

that. The very time that more and more young people, because they're

unemployed, are knocking on the doors of post-secondary institutions,

we see this government attempting to limit access, raise fees, make

things more difficult for those students when they need government

assistance most.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to this business of access, the needs of a

college or institution are not going to be any longer defined locally.

That's what concerns us a great deal. The needs are going to be defined

by the minister. Now I don't know how the minister, assisted no matter

how ably by his bureaucrats, can define the needs of a local board.

This new act removes all elected officials from the membership of the

board. Some of the other acts even remove students and faculty, so you

don't even get that kind of input. Nobody's suggesting, for instance,

Mr. Speaker, that students and faculty should have the majority on the

board, that the tail of the employee should wag the dog of the board.

No one's suggesting that at all. But we are suggesting that the board

will lack important input if it doesn't have as its representatives

elected officials, members of the student body, and perhaps some

members of the staff and faculty.

Now I know that that's considered a no-no, because that form of

industrial democracy is not acceptable by the administration before us.

But it seems to me that what will happen here is a complete isolation

from the realities and problems by moves such as these. Hundreds of

students were turned away from colleges last year at registration

because there was no room for them. They fiddled around.... Last summer

Fraser Valley College didn't even have chairs for the students to sit

on, two weeks before they were to come in. I raised that in the House

one day when we were asked for examples, and the next thing that

happened is that the principal was on the phone asking how I got that

kind of information. Somebody was obviously interested in hammering him

for letting that information out, which he didn't do anyway, I hesitate

to add, in order to protect his hide.

AN HON. MEMBER: It probably wasn't correct.

MR. ROSE: No, it was right in the minutes. If you are

suggesting that the minutes weren't correct, I am just saying that the

principal wasn't the culprit; that's all. I don't even know the man.

Anyway, there were certainly hundreds of students turned away from

colleges and institutes at registration. Waiting lists of up to three

years are becoming extremely common. Reductions in university and

academic offerings are going to be a serious matter, again because of

access and mobility. It is much simpler for a student in West Point

Grey to take his academic training at UBC, or a Burnaby student at

UVIC, than it is for some poor little kid from Prince George to come

down to UBC and pay board, especially to some of those unscrupulous

landlords. They can't be protected now that the rentalsman is gone.

That is merely an aside but I think the point is valid. It doesn't

matter who he is; I think if he is unscrupulous, a person needs

protection from him. I don't think that point needs to be emphasized

anymore, because it is an obvious one. Anyway, it is gone. You are

cutting down on the number of academic offerings at junior colleges and

community colleges, and that limits access for those people who want an

academic education. That's happening and you can't deny it. You are not

going to get any inspiration staring at that ceiling.

Access is extremely important because we have reached the period in

our history where we are going to involve ourselves in continuous

education. Education is no longer something that you just start and

stop, and then you are finished with it. It is not like going to school

at age six and I am out at age 18, and that's the end of it, or I may

go to university. We need an educational system — and we have developed

one — which permits people to opt out for a while, do some work, then

opt in again, and that's good. Anything that distorts or disturbs that

does a disservice to society. We need that kind of procedure and that

kind of system.

Bill 19,

section 5, and Bill 20,

section 6, and various amendments,

suggest that students are going to have a much more difficult time

getting programs that they want, and little chance of going away unless

they have the money. There are certain elitist overtones that bother

us, because we know that universities discriminate in favour of the

sons and daughters of the affluent. They don't mean to, but they do it

anyway. I don't say they deliberately set out to do it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's hogwash.

MR. ROSE: Look at some stats. Find out the occupations of the fathers of those students registered at UBC. The thing is well known.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Give me the statistics on those wanting to

serve apprenticeships, whether they are the sons of union members or

the sons of contractors. Do you want to play with that one too?

MR. ROSE: That has nothing to do with it. I am arguing that

we should have access to universities based on meritocracy and not

money. The minister says there is some kind of favouritism among union

parents regarding apprenticeships. I could also tell the minister that

our apprentices start around 21 and 22,

whereas in Europe they start

around 14 and 15, and they are through their apprenticeships by the time

[ Page 1372 ]

they are 21 and 22. I think there should be

fairness. I know a helluva lot more doctors' sons get to medical school

than sons of other people. It may even be the case that a lot more

lawyers' sons get into law school, but since you are the first

generation that it has happened to, you wouldn't know about that; we

will have to see what happens with your own children.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have dealt, if not brilliantly at least

extensively, with the question of access. That is a concern of ours

because we think recent actions by this government on the basis of

student loans, cutting courses, determining what courses will be

allowed and what will be considered duplications, threaten access. For

instance, my friend from Atlin asked me to say that he is concerned

about access and the opportunities for young native kids in his riding

because of cutting back on certain courses, and the fact that you need

them locally because you haven't got the money for transportation or

the ability to pay board in the major urban centres. I don't think, as

Frank Beinder said, that we should be blind to what's happening. We had

a humane and pragmatic new educational concept. Perhaps it needs to be

updated, but not destroyed. "It is ironic to observe that it is not

institutions but senior government which seems to be losing touch with

the staggering implications of change." I recommend the reading of Mr.

Beinder to the minister.

The other thing we're concerned about besides access is the business

of centralism. We've seen it in a great number of bills — tax and

municipal bills. We've seen it in Bill 6, which we haven't debated too

extensively up to now, but which we'll be getting into later, and we

see it here. Power, as I suggested earlier, is finding its way largely

into the hands of the minister and his officials — his deputy minister

has as much power to act as the minister. Therefore it's gone from its

traditional parliamentary place in democracy with elected officials

into the hands of those people who are not elected.

You know, all the colleges and institutes were directed to create

five-year capital budgets, five-year plans — mandatory planning.

"Otherwise," said the ministry last year — that predates this minister

— "there will be more demand than the system can accommodate. Each

institution can increase its productivity and efficiency." Oh, I know

the minister's had trouble with efficiency and productivity before.

You've been asked to define it before. I asked him the other day in the

House, and he got up and shouted about six incomprehensible sentences.

I don't know if he knows what productivity is. Does it mean that

teachers teach more students? Is that productivity? Or is productivity

the measure of how much is learned by those students? When the minister

starts bandying around words such as "efficiency" and "productivity," I

think it would be an excellent idea for him to define exactly what he

means by those things. So far we're not reassured by his mutterings on

the matter. So far he's been somewhat less than lucid, I would suggest

to you. He's been loud but not lucid.

Mr. Speaker, let me go on about this. Other people have talked about

the need for long-term planning. As early as July we heard that the

funding formula was going to be introduced and implemented in 1984. Its

formula is going to be embodied in response to government directives.

Of course, if any board or anybody in that institution doesn't pay

attention to those government directives, you know what Bill 3 says to

them: $2,000 fine. That is a sobering thought.

[4:15]

MR. REID: Let's hope their fiscal responsibility....

MR. ROSE: Listen, if you go and look at the graphs of

educational spending over the last two years, you'll find that it has

levelled out without the hammer of the $2,000 fine or Mr. Peck.

MR. REID: That's not true and you know it.

MR. ROSE: Just a minute now. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to be

deflected by hecklers on my left. When they're so obviously inaccurate

and don't know what they're talking about, I at least like to show them

a picture. So I'll show them a picture out of the school board's

budget: "A Taxation Report to Business" by the School Trustees'

Association....

Somebody groaned. They groaned about the School Trustees'

Association — I thought the school trustees were the Socreds' friends

years ago. Anyway, here's a graph on page 8 which graphs the spending

of school board budgets: 1982 to 1983 — dropped. The total budget

dropped. However, business and residential property taxes rose

staggeringly.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSE: In other words, you believe there should be lots of taxes, but don't spend it on the schools.

MR. REID: We're spending more on schools this year than last year.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the budget is projected for 1984. It's not projected for this....

Anyway, I refuse to be drawn in further than that on this particular

issue, because I have a committee meeting to go to and I don't have all

that much time. I don't feel that I've lost the argument. I've got the

documentation right here. If you care to look at it, then come and

look. In the meantime, I've got a lot to say here, and I would

appreciate it if you didn't deflect me too much more, unless I find

that I run out of words.

As I said earlier, Bills 19, 20 and 6 are all part of a package; it

was an idea to centralize. "As a party we want all the blocks, the

impediments, to centralized power removed. We don't mind the business

of the three councils sharing powers with the minister." I don't think

anybody is going to scream too loudly if they have been eliminated or

shrunk to one, provided, of course, they are not merely puppets but act

as a responsible autonomous board. I think that's important.

We think that their function has been unwieldy and perhaps

expensive. We don't think the minister is all bad; we just want to make

him better. We want to make sure that he doesn't rush headlong into the

blunders that he's likely to if he doesn't get some sound advice, not

from this side of the House but from those people affected by the kind

of legislation he's attempting to put forward.

To summarize, we don't like the idea that the power that used to belong

to councils has been returned to the minister — or has disappeared. Councils

acting autonomously and freely are an important part of our social fabric; they

give us local input. We feel that when you strip away the powers from councils,

whether they are running colleges or school boards, something is lost. I don't

think the member of a council should only sit at the pleasure of the cabinet,

and if he doesn't behave himself or herself can be removed forthwith. The

local board's right to decide its course in its jurisdiction, its plans

for the future, is, I think, a right that should never be

[ Page

1373 ]

taken away from a community college or else you rip the community right out

of the centre of it. Bill 19 does that; Bill 20 does the same thing.

The courses should be in response to local needs. They should be

planned by the faculty in response to the community and the students

and the consumers of those courses and the need for them. They

certainly shouldn't be left entirely under the power of the minister.

I mentioned the business about job security and compensation. They

now rest entirely with the government. Any kind of association, any

kind of workers' rights have been removed at the stroke of a pen. We

don't like that very much. We think that is a very dangerous precedent.

Even among private companies, such as the unholy CPR or Mac-Blo, there

are union agreements which allow for seniority and some kind of job

security in grievance. You've taken this away in these bills. You put

it forward as some sort of little Milquetoasty money-saving thing that

you've done. You haven't done that at all; you've become Jack the

Ripper. We're not going to sit silently for that, and neither should we.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time under standing orders has expired.

MR. ROSE: I thank the members for their attention.

I close by saying that we're not going to support this bill, because

we don't like it very much, for the reasons I've said. I think that to

suggest that this thing is some sort of innocuous little piece of

legislation to tidy up something or to make something a little bit more

representative is an outright evasion of the truth, and it's a

misreading of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: I think our critic for education has certainly

outlined very clearly our opposition to this bill. So I just intend to

attempt to put in some of my own concerns about the bill and perhaps to

persuade the minister that there are areas.... Outside of the fact that

he's eliminating the councils, which we agree with, we wish that the

other aspects of the bill would be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, the history of community colleges in British Columbia

is a proud one, and it did start with the Social Credit government way

back when Donald Brothers was Minister of Education. I recall that at

the time we were all pleased. The Social Credit government of that day

had sent Mr. Brothers to California, where he studied the junior

college system. He came back here and, fortunately, he didn't just

develop a system exactly the same as the American system; we developed

our own community college system here, which suited the needs of the

people of British Columbia. I've always paid credit to the Social

Credit government for doing it those many years ago.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When the New Democratic Party became government, we were very

pleased to inherit a college system, but we realized that there were

deficiencies. For one thing, the whole province was not being served by

community colleges. Under the NDP government we were very pleased to

continue to expand the community college system. When we left office

the whole province was served. We created four new colleges.

One other thing we were concerned about as government was that the college

board should be governed by the true community representatives. Under the Minister

of Education, who first took over in 1975 — the now Minister of Science — I

regret to say that the whole community college system took a very big step backwards

from its original purpose. I had hoped that the government, in changing ministers,

would remove the detrimental aspects of college legislation which the present

Minister of Science unfortunately brought before this House and, with their

massive majority, passed — over the objections of many people in this province

who were not at all pleased with the trend which the Minister of Science wished

to turn our community colleges towards.

What was really wrong with it? The main problem was that that

minister — and I'm not referring to the present one; I'll come to him

in a few minutes — the past minister, the Minister of Science, when he

was Minister of Education, really did not show too much interest in the

community college system. It was obvious that he was more oriented to

the universities, and it showed in what happened to the colleges during

that period. Unfortunately, with his development of extra councils,

which he more or less pushed through this Legislature over the

objections of the NDP — and we are on record as voting against it — I

think he did a grave disservice to community college development in

this province.

If it was to help financially — and we were moving into a period of

recession then — it most certainly did not. As a matter of fact, the

tragedy of the legacy left by that minister for community colleges is

that his convoluted system of councils, which he forced upon the

community college structure in British Columbia, created more problems

economically and from an organizational point of view. It simply did

not work. And so I pay credit to the new Minister of Education, who has

seen fit to remove that cumbersome structure which he inherited from

the Minister of Science.

I could go back and read to the House some of the great, eloquent

statements made by that Minister of Science, who we know is able

through his great experience in this Legislature to make a very fine

speech. He referred to the bill he was bringing in as "the bill of the

century," and to how it was going to improve the colleges tremendously

throughout this whole province. Actually, what happened was that the

act he pushed through this House has effectively created provincially

rather than regionally oriented colleges. And the real involvement in

policy-making by the local boards was superseded by all his convoluted

councils and, also, more departmental committees.

This minister, I thought, in removing these councils which, by the

way, also added more financial burdens.... I had hopes that he would

restore to the people of British Columbia their true community college

system,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We will.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister protests and says that he will

restore.... He has to make it a protestation — if there is such a word

— because his legislation does not give the opportunity any more for

regional and local control and input into our community colleges. So

how on earth can that minister, who removed the buffers and unnecessary

councils, now say that he is providing local autonomy once more in the

colleges when the legislation that he has produced before us gives him

more power over community colleges than we have ever seen before, even

under that very strong-willed — and

[ Page 1374 ]

many times intolerant — Minister of Science when he

controlled the colleges? I'm afraid that even he did not go so far to

remove local control as our new minister has. I don't know who has

talked to him; I don't know who has convinced him that he should have

this heavy hand over the colleges. But I think we have to consider that

it is strictly a political move. I ask that minister if he's really

thinking of the effect it will have on delivering services well in the

community colleges. He claims in his speeches — and I listen to him

carefully — that his structure, whereby he will now have major

centralized control over our college programs, will actually serve the

students better. I say to the minister that it cannot.

[4:30]

The minister says that exercising greater control over colleges and

universities will actually provide better and more qualified trained

workers for the megaprojects. We now question whether there will be any

more work there, unfortunately. Yet the programs that should be given

some emphasis are also today basically the programs which are being

chopped off because of lack of funding. Surely we need to diversify the

training in our community colleges today to try to help all those

people who are unemployed. Yet this minister, through his heavy hand

with this legislation, is simply going to run the community colleges

from his office now, Mr. Speaker. How on earth is he going to know what

is really needed in the various communities of the province of British

Columbia as one man sitting with a couple of deputies perhaps assisting

him in his office? It is not going to work, and what I am really

concerned about is that it is doing a grave disservice to the original

design and purpose of our community college system.

The other concern I have is with the minister's heavy-handed removal

of the right of the school trustees to sit on the college councils —

and I'm going back to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) because he was the one who turned the

direction of the community college system to a very negative direction.

That's why I keep referring to him. Unfortunately this minister is

following in his footsteps in most areas. That minister, upon becoming

minister in 1975, immediately embarked on a program of changing

appointments on the college councils. You recall, Mr. Speaker, that a

minister, up till now, besides having the school trustees on the board,

had the right to appoint from the minister's office. I recall that when

I was minister I had that opportunity too. I recall also that I did not

start on a vendetta or purge to remove appointments that had been made

by the former Social Credit government. I felt that those people had

been appointed at that time by the former government and should serve

out their term, and as a matter of fact some of them were even

reappointed, believe it or not. Whether they had been appointed by the

Social Credit government or not, I looked at whether or not they were

doing a good job for the community. I wish I could say the same thing

for the Minister of Universities, but when he came in one of his first

steps was to ensure that three of my appointments were not reappointed,

with no apparent reason. I'm just making this point — and I'm not just

going over old history for the sake of it — to say to you that this

minister will also now have completely in his hands the opportunity to

place straight political appointments on all the college boards in

British Columbia no more school trustees will be allowed on. That

minister may say: "No, I'm going to try to pick the right people."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I look back at the Minister of Universities

in his appointments. The NDP always believed that the appointments to

college boards should represent the community, and I think if you go

back and look at the appointments made under our administration, that's

what we attempted to do. We attempted to ensure that there were people

not just from business.... We certainly agreed that a college board

should have business experience on it. So I think you will find that we

did place a number of people on the board with business experience,

which was certainly needed. But we also appointed women. Some of the

women had business experience, but the point I'm making is that we made

sure that capable women were placed on the board. We made sure that

there were appointments from labour. In fact, the whole idea was to

say: "Look, this community college represents the community. It

represents all aspects of our society. Therefore the college board

should be represented by people from all sectors of society."

What happened when the Social Credit became government again in

1975? Not only did they pretty well ensure that no NDP appointments

were left on.... That just seemed to be the natural thing for them,

without checking to see whether any of those NDP appointments were

doing a good job or not; they were never reappointed. Putting that one

aside, which is bad enough, I followed carefully the appointments made

by the Social Credit government under the Minister of Universities and

the minister who is no longer here, the Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, and what

I found was really tragic. I'm saying this in the hope that when the

minister who is now in charge makes these appointments he will prove to

us that he will not follow in their footsteps. Do you know what they

did, Mr. Speaker? If you go through it you will find hardly any women

at all have been appointed to the college boards. Maybe one or two, but

if you go through the appointments, it was disgraceful. The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications obviously did not think that

there were many women in the province of B.C. capable of serving on a

college board, and I say shame on that government for allowing him to

get away with it. You can just go through all the appointments made,

which I've done, Mr. Speaker, and I will not bore the House by reading

them to you now.

Also, not only did the government not feel that women were capable

of serving on the college boards, but they felt there was only one

sector of society that had any ability to sit on that board, and that

meant that you had to have business experience. If you didn't have

business experience....

You go through the list, Mr. Speaker, and you show me that what I'm

saying is incorrect. I think you will find that most of the

appointments were all from one sector of society. Now, you see, what we

have here today, in asking us to support this bill.... Instead of

specifying in the bill that there should be people elected from certain

areas — and if that won't be done, at least restoring it to the

community in some way.... Once again we could find ourselves with no

women on the college boards, with nobody from labour, with no ordinary

people who are very capable of sitting on boards. Why you just have to

have business experience to be appointed by the Social Credit

government is beyond me.

I am very concerned that this act will now give that Minister of

Education the opportunity to make, as I said earlier, straight

political appointments that will not serve the needs of the people of

British Columbia. I am saying to that minister that there is no way

that the NDP could possibly

[ Page 1375 ]

support this legislation when you are not giving

any assurance to the public of B.C. that these appointments to the

college boards will really reflect the society that exists in that

community. In the past, particularly under the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications, they have shown a completely

elitist approach to appointments for college boards. The whole idea of

the community college is to make everyone feel that that college is

theirs. How can they feel that when the people who are put in control

only have one perspective, developed from their own basic experience?

The other point that concerns us is if all these appointments are to

be made just by the minister out of his office.... With no more school

trustees, they could be hand-picked to ensure that if something isn't

right at that college board, if the government is holding up funds or

not keeping up their responsibility in funding — which we now know it

isn't.... How are we going to hear about it? We will certainly here

about it from the staff and the students, but will we hear about these

problems from college-appointed boards, hand-picked by the political

minister?

There's another serious problem: it's not going to give us much

confidence that we're going to have college boards who are there to

work for the people and not just, to put it very bluntly, Mr. Speaker,

to be mouthpieces for the Social Credit government. These are the areas

that concern all of us with this college bill.

The councils, as I said, have gone. But you know, we listened to the

minister and read the speeches he made to the colleges. I know as a new

minister — and I went through it myself — that you cannot get the grasp

of a large ministry overnight, but before that minister makes some

major changes, as he's done here in this bill, I think we all would

feel much better if he had taken time to tell us what his goals are for

community colleges, so that we know that whatever framework comes out

in this bill is based on his goals. I wonder if the minister has taken

the time to read some of the papers that have come across his desk from

knowledgeable people who have been studying the community colleges for

years and have been trying to give input to government.

Mr. Speaker, if you'll bear with me, I just want to make a few

points from one of the briefs that have been sent, I am sure, to the

minister in the past for discussion. This is "The Structure of

Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia: A Position Paper." Dr.

John D. Dennison made some points here. I am not saying that he has all

the answers, but all I'm saying to the minister is that here is someone

who has worked for years in the system at UBC, but made a major study

of community colleges, and I know he has really studied them. I believe

he was even sent to Australia at one time to assist them in their

community colleges, These are not my ideas, but I must say that I think

I could hopefully endorse most of them, and I would ask the minister to

consider just a few points. Dr. Dennison says: "Any proposed structure

for post-secondary or higher education at the provincial level should

be based upon the following principles: the preservation of maximum

autonomy for member institutions with respect to their own priorities

and internal governance...." This act, Mr. Speaker, if it passes, will

not allow for that. Second, "The recognition of the need for diversity

within the system." If I can elaborate on that point, where on earth,

with a centralized, rigid bill like this, are we going to be assured

that there can be diversity?

Another point is made in this brief: the need to ensure coordination among

institutions, increase communication and provide mutual awareness of the directions

which each institution is taking." Again, we look at this and we say, everything's

going to be run out of the minister's office. There's going to be very

little local autonomy. The minister can make decisions on all the programs.

So you say to yourself, what difference would it make if there is coordination

anyway, if the minister's going to make the decision? That, I consider,

is tragic.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

Another point he makes is: "...maximum responsiveness of member institutions

to the needs of society and government." I don't think any of us disagree

with that. He also says: "...the coordination of financial requirements

of member institutions to ensure optimal application of the higher-education

budget." Then he says: "Every opportunity should be ensured for the

prime consumer of higher education, the student, to undertake further education

and enjoy maximum access and change of goals without unnecessary institutional

barriers." It is not easy to follow those kinds of goals, but at least

they are setting for a government....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Sure it is. Just do them.

[4:45]

MRS. DAILLY: I wish you could, but I don't think it's going

to be that easy. But at least, if that minister would just tell us that

his structure that he's now proposing in this act, where he is taking

over a very central position in the handling of community colleges,

where he alone is going to be in charge of the appointments to the

boards.... Where on earth could those goals be met through that act? I

just cannot see it being done. That, again, is another reason why the

NDP is really concerned with this act.

As our previous speaker said, our education critic, this bill is

also a sign of what we've seen and will be discussing further in Bill 6

and in Bill 19, another sign of centralization by this government.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, with this centralization we are very

concerned that there won't even be the necessary financing. We found

that out in the past. Now, of course, there are going to be very few

complaints coming from the college boards, because they're going to be

appointed by the minister himself. So it's up to the opposition, to the

students and the staff to try to keep the public aware that under this

government — which has now decided to return the colleges to a

centralized system — it's up to all of us to say we want to preserve

the best possible system we can. I'm still concerned that we will not

be able to do that.

This college act also concerns me in the area of the BCIT. We'll get

onto it, I think, in the next bill, so I'd better not discuss it. I

wanted to say a few words about that, but I know that that is the other

bill, Bill 19 I believe. So I won’t get on to the BCIT one at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize as much as I can to this Legislature

that the passage of a bill such as the minister is placing before us is simply

not going to do what we want it to do: that is, to keep a truly community system.

There will not be the input....

"Inputt." We kind of miss him — years and years of being here with

one of our other colleagues.

[ Page 1376 ]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be there, and no matter how the minister

may try to wind up his conclusion to this bill, we are saying to him

that we cannot support a bill which centralizes control of community

colleges, which takes away trustee representation, which doesn't give

an opportunity for women, labour or other groups besides business to

serve on those boards, and which doesn't give enough financing —

because there's nothing here talking about financing — to assure us

that there will be a vehicle where proper financing can come. How on

earth could we possibly support it?

The minister is very proud to tell us that they financed 100 percent

— no longer local taxation. That was a good move at the time, and we

said it was good. The NDP removed sharing for capital financing as our

first step, so that it was 100 percent on the government providing for

capital. The Social Credit followed up with 100 percent for operating.

But the point is, Mr. Speaker, with that 100 percent for operating

there seems to be a suggestion that this gives the minister the right

to completely take over control. The point I find very ironic about

that is that the school boards of British Columbia — for example, my

own school board of Burnaby, which is now paying over 80 percent of

school taxation.... Can you imagine that today over 80 percent is borne

by the people of Burnaby? Why does it not follow, if we follow your

minister's theory, that local control should not be commensurate with

the amount of financing? Because the minister has said 100 percent

financing for community colleges, he can use that as a smokescreen for

saying he has a right to control. If we follow that, what about my

district? My district should certainly have almost complete control

instead of this centralized control that is imposed on them by the

Social Credit government.

The point I am making is that the NDP believe in following the

McMath report, which was 75-25. No matter how financing is done,

whether the government pays the majority or not, we believe that local

control and local input are absolutely necessary. Under this government

you don't get it either way. You have school boards starved for money

and in most cases having to put up the majority of the financing for

the local taxpayer, and you still don't have control. The community

colleges are getting maybe 100 percent financing and still there is no

control. I think that minister has to do a lot of serious thinking

about the true role of the community colleges, making sure the students

today are properly financed so they can attend, and he is going to have

to also discuss our concerns about local control in the public school

districts as it applies in Bill 6.

Speaking of financing, we often hear figures thrown out from the

Social Credit members on how well they treat education in British

Columbia on all bases, from public school up. The interesting thing is

that when you have students today who are concerned about being unable

to get into their community colleges due to lack of funds, that

government is shortchanging the future of our people. I think the

minister has not only a responsibility to ensure local control but also

a grave responsibility to ensure that he fights in the Treasury Board

for adequate money for education. I know we are in tough times because

of the situation that the Social Credit government has placed the

people of British Columbia in. We can't just blame the world situation.

The policies of the Social Credit government have created a situation

in this province where more and more people are unemployed, where more

of our youth are unemployed, no matter how you cut it. There is no

excuse for the Social Credit to continually blame the world scene.

Recent figures from the B.C. Central Credit Union show that the

unemployment rate among young people in British Columbia is one of the

highest in Canada. If that government cannot create jobs for those

young people, through their policies, they had better ensure that those

young people can attend our educational institutions so that they can

be trained, learn and develop a broad educational background to equip

them for the day when hopefully we will have a democratic socialist

government in power who can provide the jobs for these young people.

That minister has under his charge one of the most important areas of

government, and that is the education of our young people. I am very

concerned, because of the legislation that he is bringing in on behalf

of his government, that full education access for our students and good

program development in our community colleges will not be achieved if

that minister does not sit down very carefully and revamp this

legislation and say to his colleagues that they have a responsibility

to make education top priority, recession or not. When you shortchange

the young people today, later on all society will suffer in British

Columbia. There is no way that the official opposition can support this

bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a few words. I

represent an area where there are two community colleges: East Kootenay

College, which serves the Creston area, and Selkirk College, which was

one of the first community colleges founded outside the lower mainland.

It was truly a community college, and that is the concern being

expressed in our main opposition to this bill. It obviously isn't the

repeal of councils, the establishment of which we opposed in the first

place, that we're objecting to. We are objecting to the manner in which

the appointment of members to the college boards will be made by the

minister through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The original establishment of community colleges is, I guess,

surrounded by a lot of mythology. I've heard different stories. I guess

we've heard a couple of stories today on how they originated. One story

I heard was that W.A.C. Bennett, on his annual vacation to Phoenix,

Arizona, became familiar with the college system in the state of

Arizona.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: He was down in Arizona, right? I said this is

some of the mythology. Now the mythology I've heard is that W.A.C.

Bennett made trips to Arizona, and that it was during that time he

became interested in and impressed by the junior college and community

college system, with more emphasis on the community college system in

Arizona vis-a-vis the junior college system in other parts of the

United States.

The community college system did come about. The decision was made

not to create four-year institutions but two-year institutions. Also,

at the time of their origin, they were founded upon a referendum. In

the case of Selkirk College there was a referendum which had to succeed

by some 60 percent before the college could be established. That was

the basis upon which it was established in the local area. So it was

established with the support of the local community.

The regulations came in. For a long time the governors of the colleges were a combination of people who had been

[ Page 1377 ]

elected locally to serve on school boards, who were

then appointed by the school boards to the college boards, and a number

of government appointees. There was then a time when the number of

locally elected people appointed to the boards by the local school

boards outnumbered the direct government appointees. Then three or four

years ago we took one backward step in this House. We changed the

balance so that the number of government appointees outnumbered the

number of elected members by, I believe, one. This was a retrograde

step. Today we see a very backward step, whereby the board of the

college will consist of five or more members appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So it does mean that it could be as few

as five, although I expect it will be somewhat more, especially when it

is necessary to give some representation to several different

communities. That is going to create a tremendous amount of

flexibility, and certainly some very poor aims can be served.

[5:00]

As my colleagues have said already, by this act we have taken the

word "community" out of the bill. We should probably now refer to our

community colleges as provincial government post-secondary learning

institutes, then give them numbers. Maybe we could start calling

Vancouver Community College Provincial Government Institute No. 1. And

others could be No. 2, etc. We have altered the meaning of "community

college."

I have seen some excellent government appointees on some of the

college boards, and I have seen other government appointees whose

attendance has been deplorable and whose performance has been lacking.

Some government appointees have been very good; some have been very

bad. I think that the responsibility for the performance of the board

should not lie with the government in making the appointments. The only

way in which we can have responsible governance is to have them all

locally elected. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that we are very

strongly against the principle of this act. It is gutting something.

I have had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Selkirk

College board as shortly as a couple of months ago. I would say that

things are being run quite well right now with the two boards that are

being operated, but this is a very retrograde step. I think the

minister could take into account the reaction of the opposition. This

would be a splendid opportunity to show that there is some

responsiveness. There is basically one

section in this bill to which we

are very much opposed. This would be a very good opportunity to start

to change the tenor of the House and to show a little bit of

cooperative spirit by reconsidering this particular section. Certainly

it would be acclaimed by the opposition and probably by the public at

large.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister is closing debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that sometimes

it's difficult for the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)