1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5649 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 5649

West Coast General Hospital deficit. Mr. Skelly –– 5650

Adolescent psychiatric unit. Mr. Barnes –– 5650

Queen Alexandria Hospital for Children. Mr. Blencoe –– 5650

Shortage of phsyiotherapists in Prince George. Mrs. Dailly –– 5650

Hospital budgets. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5650

Steve Fonyo run. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5650

Charter of Rights Amendment Act (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5651

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Second reading

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5652

Mr. Lockstead –– 5653

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5654

Division –– 5656

Workplace Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 5656

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5656

Mr. Cocke –– 5656

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 5656

Division –– 5656

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5659

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to

introduce to this House my constituency assistant, Delores Pfister from

Powell River, and the constituency assistant to our MP, Mr. Ray Skelly,

Brenda De Graag from Powell River. I ask the House to join me in

welcome.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery today are some members

representing the College of Dental Surgeons: Dr. John Silver, the

president; Dr. Bob Hicks, chairman of the government liaison committee;

Mr. Ken Croft, the managing director; and Mr. Roy Thordarson, the

registrar. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MS. SANFORD: None of the MLAs in this chamber, I think, would

survive without the able assistance of the constituency representatives

whom we have working in our constituency offices throughout the

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have today a number of these

constituency assistants sitting in the galleries, and on behalf of our

caucus I would like to introduce all of them and to ask the House to

make them very welcome. They are: Gwen Ranger, Sharon Prescott, Gayle

Ballard, Betty Hlookoff, Barb MacPherson, Brenda De Graag, Lynn Aikman,

Norma Randle, June Jensen, Shirley Cherwak, Marguerite Robinson, Sheila

McFarlane, Jim Hamilton, Dawn Black, Bev Bairstow and Delores Pfister.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your House today is a person whom

I'd like to introduce. After I've introduced him.... It's amazing that

he has time to be here, but I have the honour of introducing to the

House Mr. Norman Young, who's a member of the Canada Council, chairman

of the Vancouver Civic Theatres Board, a member of the Vancouver

Centennial Commission, a member of the Vancouver Archives Advisory

Committee, former chairman of the B.C. Arts Board and a member of the

World's Worst Art Auction Committee. I'd ask the House to make him

welcome while he's here.

MR. ROSE: I would ask the House to please welcome this

afternoon school trustee Lorna Morford, along with four friends from

Coquitlam and five Delta residents who are here today to meet with

their MLAs and express their concerns about the state of education in

the province.

MR. PARKS: I'd like to join the hon. members for Comox and

Coquitlam-Moody in welcoming two members who are in your gallery: first

of all, Mrs. Dawn Black, one of my constituents; and, although I

haven't seen her this afternoon, greetings to trustee Lorna Morford

from Coquitlam. I share this with my colleagues from the opposite side.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to the House, from the

galleries, the constituency secretary of the dean of the House, whose name was

inadvertently missed from the list, Mrs. Lorraine Morris.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has lost over $20

million over the last eight months because the Social Credit government

insists on charging user fees in violation of the Canada Health Act.

Will the Minister of Health advise this House that he and his

government are now prepared to abolish those fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a correction: in compliance with the Canada Health Act, not in violation of the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you for that usual answer which does not

deal with my question. I would like to continue and ask the minister

once again — I don't think I need a supplementary, Mr. Speaker — my

question: will he and his government now abolish these user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I had my choice, Mr. Speaker, I'd rather abolish the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. Are the Minister of Health and

his government not concerned about the loss of revenue to the province

of British Columbia because of his and his government's stubbornness?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the government

is concerned when any senior government chooses to punish provinces for

administering the responsibility of health care. The matter is being

discussed between provinces and the federal government. Most of the

provinces are in disagreement with the Canada Health Act. It is hoped

that perhaps at some time there may be some opportunity to persuade the

federal government to agree with the provinces. Notwithstanding the

amount of money which is in dispute and which is representative by

penalty...falls within the three-year period of time when it could be

recovered. So that three years has not yet expired, and we are still in

discussions with the federal minister.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. When the minister said a moment

ago that he would like to abolish the Canada Health Act, does that mean

that the minister therefore wishes to abolish medicare?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the

constitution of Canada, health care is a provincial responsibility. I

wish the federal government would wake up and recognize that, and get

rid of the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary: is the minister aware that user fees are a tax on the sick?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, those who attend our hospitals for treatment generally are ill.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister not aware that today, because of his government's policies of high unemployment,

[ Page 5650 ]

more and more people find user fees a financial burden? Would he not agree that they are?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, literally thousands of

people are paying user fees of some kind each day. The amount for an

acute-care facility is $8.50 a day. Over the course of a year I would

think we might get four or five complaints from citizens with respect

to that.

MRS. DAILLY: Does the minister not agree that the citizens

who are being charged user fees are also paying for their medicare

through taxes when they are working?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: User fees have been a factor in the medical

system in British Columbia since the programs began. The user fees

continued when the opposition was government.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar a day.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, now it's a matter of how much.

The user fees in British Columbia represent considerable revenue for

hospitals; they do provide them with a certain amount of revenue. We

are of the belief that the amounts charged do not make a difficult

financial burden for our citizens. There are instances where some

individuals are destitute and do not have the opportunity or the

ability to pay, and usually arrangements are made to resolve that

problem. But I find it very difficult to believe that a person who is

receiving approximately $400 worth of service a day for acute care

finds it objectionable to be asked to pay $8.50 a day.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister aware that many of our citizens

are unable to pay the user fees and therefore are building up a

tremendous problem of collection of debts for the hospitals in B.C.?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's interesting that the member opposite

is concerned about collection of debts yet disagrees with the charge.

The hospitals are not that concerned about their uncollectable debts.

They recognize that there are certain instances where a person will

probably never be in the position to be able to pay. But those who go

to our hospitals are more than happy to pay the $8.50 a day, unless

they are in a very desperate financial situation, particularly those

who have taken a trip to the U.S. and become ill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, hospitals in British Columbia, if I

may say this before I move on to the next question, are not allowed

deficit financing by that minister, so naturally we are concerned about

their deficit position.

The next question to the minister is the matter of the present

situation with hospitals in B.C. They are now well into the fiscal year

yet still do not know what their operating grant is. How on earth can

he expect hospitals of this province to plan when he has not yet

announced the grant? Will he tell the House now when he is going to?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The individual grants to the hospitals are now being processed, and they should receive that information very soon.

WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL DEFICIT

MR. SKELLY: I have another question to the Minister of

Health. West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni is being forced to

close 19 beds and eliminate 18 full-time equivalent staff because the

government has refused to assist with last year's deficit. Given the

problems with staffing levels at West Coast General and the impact of

additional unemployment in the Port Alberni area, will the minister

reconsider his decision not to fund last year's deficit at Westcoast

General Hospital?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

MR. BARNES: This is to the Minister of Health as well

regarding the closing of the Vancouver General Hospital's teenage

psychiatric ward. I am advised that concerned groups in the Vancouver

area made contact with the minister regarding the proposed closing of

the Vancouver General Hospital's teenage psychiatric unit this summer.

In view of the community concern, has the minister decided whether he

will meet with this group?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of which group are you speaking?

MR. BARNES: As I say, I have been advised that that was the

case; however, I think the minister is aware of the problem. In light

of the fact that this is the only such unit in the province, and in

light of the fact that there has been no precedent set for the closing

of the unit in the summertime, has the minister satisfied himself that

there will be no danger to their health or any risk for these young

people should the need arise for them to have this emergency service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver General Hospital

assures me that they will be able to take care of the demand during the

period of time when that unit will be closed. One of the reasons for

closing it entirely is to accommodate some staffing difficulties. The

hospital has advised me that they will be able to handle the caseload

with no difficulty. That's why they made the decision.

QUEEN ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN

MR. BLENCOE: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In mid-1983,

here in greater Victoria, the ministry approved a 25-bed unit at the

Queen Alexandra Hospital for children and adolescents with acute mental

illness. The project, however, has been on hold ever since. I know that

the minister is well aware of the shortage of such facilities for

disturbed adolescents. Can the minister assure the House that this

essential project at Queen Alexandra Hospital is a high priority with

the Ministry of Health and the Treasury Board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would take the question as

notice because I would like to get some specific details on that. It is

certainly a high priority, but I'd like to get some additional

information.

[ Page

5651 ]

SHORTAGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTS

IN PRINCE GEORGE

MRS. DAILLY: The main question that I want to ask the

minister today is to do with the Prince George Hospital, which seems to

be plagued with many problems, all resulting primarily from the

government's hospital financing policies. They're short of

physiotherapists in Prince George, and at the same time we hear that

they may be closing those courses at UBC, which seems rather ironic

when they're desperately needed in British Columbia and here's a chance

for work. Would the minister tell us if he has intervened or discussed

this problem with the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) or

with the university itself?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it seems that sometimes the

courses that offer the best opportunity for employment, and also serve

the greatest need in our community, are those which universities

suggest they should cancel first. I suppose that's because it captures

most attention.

Yes, I have spoken to the minister, and I believe that the

universities are in effect asking everyone associated with courses to

justify the continuation of courses, as a matter of course. But there

are certain paramedical courses being offered which should be

continued. Unlike some courses offered, these are useful in our

society, and I certainly have petitioned the minister responsible to

keep on with it.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier. The Kelowna

General Hospital board has been given an ultimatum by the Ministry of

Health to stay within its budget for the next fiscal year, or else. The

executive director in fact told board members in early March: "It seems

inevitable that we will have to contemplate major cutbacks in beds and

services, and it would be unrealistic to think otherwise." Can the

Premier please advise the House as to whether hospitals throughout

British Columbia will all be issued with ultimatums by the Minister of

Health, following the example of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich'

s) recent ultimatums to the school boards?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I met with the chairman of the

hospital board as recently as last weekend; he assures me that they can

resolve their problems. We meet on a regular basis. I see a difficulty

in management and tough times, but I have regular meetings with the

chairman of the hospital board — who I also saw today on other business

here in Victoria. But I'll tell him you were interested.

STEVE FONYO RUN

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Premier for your response. I

do have another question, and this is directed to the Provincial

Secretary. In view of the large number of people who are waiting a

decision from the government, will the Provincial Secretary please

advise whether cabinet has now decided to match contributions raised by

Steve Fonyo in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The matter is under active consideration by cabinet

at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I believe that answer is the same answer we received last week, and I was hoping that there would be a more positive response.

However, rumour does have it that the minister will attend at the

B.C. border on the Trans-Canada Highway to welcome Mr. Fonyo and his

entourage. In the interests of a non-partisan approach and in the

spirit of cooperation in fundraising for cancer research, my question

is: has the Provincial Secretary decided to include representatives

from both sides of the House as a part of the welcoming committee for

Mr. Fonyo?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, the Provincial Secretary has invited the MLA of the constituency in which Mr. Fonyo will be arriving.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My thanks.

Introduction of Bills

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 33, Charter of

Rights Amendment Act, be introduced and now read a first time. I gave

notice under the new rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, since we have passed over one step we need leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, three years ago tomorrow on the

banks of the Ottawa River amid torrential deluges of rain the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian constitution, 1982, were signed

into force and effect by Her Majesty the Queen. Three years later, in

compliance with

section 15 of the Charter of Rights, the equality

section of that document comes into force tomorrow. Since the

Legislature may not meet, it being Wednesday, I am introducing this

bill today. The bill, you will find, in a tangible way presents a

number of changes — long overdue, in my view — which will bring about

some long-needed equity.

This list which you will see in that bill of some 50 measures that

are being amended to conform with the equality provisions is neither a

final nor an exhaustive list. Our approach in this bill has been to

deal with the obvious and clear instances where there has been a

conflict with

section 15 — a readily apparent conflict. But undoubtedly

there are other conflicts. Some of those conflicts will be identified

through court proceedings. Others will emerge through usage and

experience. There are some sections now that I have expressed concerns

about as to their doubt and their validity.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that members of the public, interested

groups as well as individuals, will wish to raise concerns and draw

possible conflicts to our attention. I promise that such consideration

will be given to all reasonable suggestions. Indeed, a number of groups

already have made submissions to us asking for changes in the

legislation, and a number of their proposals will have been adopted in

this bill. Others are still under study.

I sincerely thank those who have taken the time to make their views

known. and particularly those who have done very extensive briefs.

[ Page 5652 ]

One area worthy of mention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister, I regret that the time under the first....

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Thank you, I appreciate that. I will try to be brief.

One area worthy of consideration is the question of mandatory

retirement, with the wide implications that that has. Cabinet is

reviewing that, and we will have a position on that in the very near

future.

I just want to detail some of the general categories of matters that

we are dealing with in this bill. First of all, we are abolishing the

concept of illegitimacy. All legislation that refers to an illegitimate

status for children is being changed, and those are extensive changes.

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Secondly, we are abolishing discrimination on the basis of residence

or British subject status. In some cases we are extending occupational

membership to include permanent residents of Canada as well as citizens

of Canada. In any case where an oath of duty or allegiance is required,

we're leaving the qualification "citizens of Canada" — including the

Election Act.

In this bill we are also modifying some age stipulations and a

number of statutes which discriminate on the basis of sex. Interspousal

immunity is abolished, following the recommendations of the B.C. Law

Reform Commission. We are also amending the Workers Compensation Act to

extend benefits to widowers as well as widows. And we are abolishing

the Married Woman's Property Act — at long last. Protection under the

wives' protection act will be extended to husbands. Registration of

names in marriage is no longer restricted to the husband's name.

Amendments respecting registration of names at birth will be contained

in a separate bill later, which will amend the Vital Statistics Act,

and so on. A number of measures to abolish gender distinction have been

introduced, and some abolishing discrimination on the basis of age.

I welcome all members of the House and the public making known their

views on further legislative changes, and I assure you that this is the

beginning and not a compendium of all change under the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms. I have great honour in introducing this bill for

first reading.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

MR. MacWILLIAM: As I mentioned before we briefly recessed, I

would like to stand and speak against Bill 30, and outline at this time

a number of concerns that I have regarding the nature of this

legislation. Being from the interior, I don't have any of the islands

in question in my constituency. But I do have a number of concerns in

terms of the impact of the type of legislation that we see before us.

I have concern with regard to the continued centralization of

authority that seems to be inherent in this legislation, as has been

inherent in a number of other bills that have been before this House in

the last few years. The enactment of this bill would give the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) exclusive power to assign

employees of his own ministry to the Islands Trust staff. Because of

that, it compromises the autonomy of the present Trust. All current

employees, moreover, will be deemed to be employees of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs. If this occurs, it would effectively eliminate the

autonomy that the Islands Trust has at this point. An analogous move

would be the province, for example, telling a local council or a school

board that all future hiring would be done by Victoria. It would remove

autonomy from these regional boards and local councils. I think that

that type of legislation, which continues the ongoing process of

centralization and the emasculation of the power of such boards, is

wrong. I believe that the direction this government is taking is wrong.

Bill 30 is deceitful. It's not as simple as the minister said. It's

not a simple housekeeping measure at all. I think that the intent of

the bill is clearly a continued centralization of power. It will remove

control of elected officials over their present situation: appointing

staff, assigning duties and controlling the priorities of the Trust.

They will lose their autonomy; it will be emasculated.

Bill 30 is disruptive. The amalgamation of the staff of Municipal

Affairs and the staff of the Islands Trust would disrupt the ongoing

planning and development services that are now provided in the Trust

area.

Mr. Speaker, cooperation and trust will evaporate, will disappear,

if the autonomy of this Trust is in any way diminished. That would

endanger both these and future development proposals.

The record of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in terms of leaving

matters in the hands of locals has been a poor one up to this point. If

we look back to last summer, the minister began refusing to sign a

variety of bylaws that were submitted to his office for approval. To

cite some examples, he turned down the Denman Island zoning bylaw; he

turned down the Lasqueti Island community plan and amendments to zoning

bylaws for Mayne and North Pender Islands. He's had his hand directly

in the affairs.

The point that I made earlier was the centralization of authority;

the centralization of decision-making, however, I think is the critical

issue here. This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that is important not only

to the constituents who reside in those islands but to all constituents

throughout this province. My constituents in Okanagan North are

concerned about the direction taken by this and other bills that this

government has both passed and proposed.

Let me give you some examples of this bit by bit, this subtle yet

inevitable accumulation and concentration of power in the hands of

those few individuals in the smoky back

[ Page

5653 ]

rooms of the provincial cabinet: the 1977 abolition

of community resource boards; the amendment of the land commission act

to allow cabinet more control. Bill 30 is an example of this continued

chipping away at control, and government control of the funding for the

development of performing arts. We've got on the books amendments to

the Municipal Act that virtually grant the minister the power to

invalidate municipal and regional district bylaws.

In 1981, if I can remind the House, the land use act changes that

were brought in removed autonomy in land use decisions from local

councils, again controlling them under the ministry.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, Mr. Minister, I think the legislation

stands. Let me point out another example to the minister, who seems

rather sensitive on that issue. The 1982 municipal expenditures act

virtually gives the minister control over funds spent by

municipalities. That's a direct hand in what really should be an

autonomous process.

We look again at 1982, the Education (Interim) Finance Act. I see

that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) isn't here to defend

or rebut the statements, but when you look at it, this legislation

brought forth in 1982 sharply curtailed the autonomy of the local

boards. In addition, it was a subtle confiscation of the industrial and

community tax base, taking it away from those communities and again

centralizing it in the hands of a few individuals.

We've got the alteration of revenue-sharing in 1977, which

substantially reduced the conditional grants to municipalities and

limited municipalities as to how they could fund their local

priorities. Everywhere you look, Mr. Speaker, this government has taken

more and more control away from the regional boards and put it into the

hands of a few individuals.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to avoid

interrupting. I think there will be an appropriate opportunity for him

to reply. I will advise the member now speaking that if he spoke more

directly to the act in front of us, much heckling might not be invited.

To the act, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but in reference to your statement, I feel that I'm speaking to the principle of the act.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's

difficult to sit here and listen to all this misinformation, but I

think the easy way to correct that is to ask that member to stay on

Bill 30. If you do so, then you won't get off track and leave all this

misinformation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The point of order is well taken and has been expressed by the Chair. To the bill, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In reference to those statements, again, we're looking

at the underlying principles of this bill. My focus was to try to show just what

this piece of legislation is furthering. I think it does represent a continued

centralization of power, and I think the minister would agree that in any democratically

elected government we have to have a certain degree of autonomy in the local

boards. This legislation takes away that type of local input and control.

In concluding, I think my arguments have pointed out that the bill

is deceitful in nature. I think they've pointed out that it does amount

to a further centralization of authority. On that basis I will be

voting against this bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It probably falls on me, not having spoken in

second reading but only on the amendment to this bill, to close debate.

I think all of our members have spoken. I'll be brief. I'm not going to

yell and scream and wave my arms.

What I really intend to do — and I hope the minister is listening —

is attempt to do is a summation of the speeches that have been made in

this House over the last week or so relating to this bill, and explain

why we're going to oppose it and vote against it. I'm going to stick

strictly to the bill.

We feel that Bill 30 is not the tidy little housekeeping bill that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs pretends it is. If the minister's

primary concern is to make it clear that Trust staff are employees of

the province, a simple amendment to the present wording of

section 13

would have sufficed. I might note that this has been proposed by the

Trust. Our debate leader is prepared to move such an amendment in

committee stage, I understand.

The effect of this bill is to remove from the control of the elected

officials the power to appoint staff, assign duties and control the

priorities of the Trust.

I know the minister is listening, even though he's having a conversation over there.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm listening.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know you are, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, amalgamation of the staff of Municipal Affairs and the

staff of the Islands Trust would seriously disrupt the planning and

development services now being provided to the communities in the Trust

area. Far from demonstrating a drawbridge mentality, the Trust has been

instrumental in obtaining local support for major developments on South

Pender, Saltspring and several other islands that I could name. I'm

very familiar with the islands in the Trust.

Cooperation and trust will evaporate if the autonomy of the Trust is

diminished, and this could endanger future development proposals, in my

view.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain asks

me who wrote it. May I tell you, Mr. Member, that I took the time to

listen to this debate very carefully, because I have islands in my

riding that are in the Trust. I have read Hansard

on the portions of the debate that I was not able to attend here in the

House when I was commuting here or was at other events. I have

summarized the debate as I saw it on two and a half pages, and I made

very careful notes. I wanted a quiet debate. I didn't want to get into

a yelling match with the minister as I did a few days ago when I spoke

on the amendment. I'm trying to summarize the debate as a whole,

because likely we'll be voting on this bill in the House within five

minutes.

Last summer the minister began refusing to sign a variety of bylaws submitted to him for approval. For example, he

[ Page 5654 ]

turned down the Denman Island zoning bylaw, the

Lasqueti Island community plan and amendments to zoning bylaws for

Mayne and North Pender Islands. I could go on. No one is certain of the

criteria applied to these cases. It appears to me that the minister has

taken it upon himself to refuse approval for plans and bylaws he

personally disagrees with. That's my honest view.

The move to take control of the Trust staff is a betrayal, in my

view, of the oft-repeated commitment to respect the autonomy of the

Islands Trust. It also betrays the government's commitment to

consultation and partnership with local governments. I know, as an

aside, that the minister has been out attempting to sell to communities

the partnership idea that has been put forward in legislation in this

House.

Who said this: "I believe nowhere else do you get the true

expression of opinion of what should be done with the surrounding area

than with the people who live their lives and have a continuing

interest in their area"? The answer to who said that is the Premier of

this province. That was a quote from May 21, 1974, during debate of the

Islands Trust Act. So, in

summary, Bill 30 is a betrayal of the

principle of local government autonomy. Moreover, it is a specific

betrayal of the government's supposed commitment to the principles of

cooperation and consultation.

Bill 30 is a dangerous precedent. It is an unwarranted interference

in the responsibilities of duly elected local officials. Once it is

established, no other democratically elected local official would be

immune from similar power grabs by Victoria. We've seen another example

of this, as my colleague pointed out, just a short while ago.

Bill 30 is a power grab, not the tidy little housekeeping bill that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs pretends. If the minister's primary

concern is to make it clear that Trust staff are employees of the

province, a simple amendment to

section 13 would suffice, as I

mentioned before.

No government member has risen in this House and successfully

explained the need to completely take over the staff of the Trust. It

was the failure of the previous minister, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, to get

cabinet support for his land use act in 1982 that drove him to resign.

At that time he called his colleagues "gutless" for refusing to support

his plan, which, among other things, would have wiped out the Islands

Trust.

Bill 30 achieves the same, albeit in a more subtle fashion. Where

the Land Use Act planned to strip the power of the Trust by appointing

a committee of provincial civil servants to perform regional planning

and governing of the islands, Bill 30 accomplishes the same by simply

absorbing those responsibilities for island planning within the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proper course for the government

now would be to drop Bill 30 and consult with the trustees and the

residents of the Gulf Islands on the need for any changes necessary to

improve the ability of the Islands Trust to fulfill its responsibility

to protect and preserve the islands.

If I may, I take this opportunity to commend our debate leader, the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), on his long, diligent and

strong opposition to this bill. This is not the end. There will be

further debate on this bill, and I sincerely hope that before we go

into committee stage on this bill the minister will seriously consider

the amendments proposed by the Trust and proposed by my colleagues. If

the minister would get up in this House now in closing debate on this

bill and tell us that he would do that, we might just reconsider our

position as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to close debate on this most interesting topic, the Islands Trust.

First, let it go on record in this House, as I have done publicly

and as I have done at meetings with the trustees, that indeed I, as the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, place a great deal of confidence in the

ability of our trustees to carry out their mandate, and also that I

personally — and I do represent my government — support the Islands

Trust and place a tremendous value on those islands. As some of your

people across the floor have said, you consider these islands as gems,

and they are. We consider them as gems also.

MR. REID: Jewels.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What's the difference?

Mr. Speaker, Islands Trust is here to stay, as far as I am

concerned, because the Islands Trust has a very important role to play,

and that role is to preserve to the best of their ability the qualities

that those islands contain.

Mr. Speaker, this entire province contains many qualities which we

have people out there elected to preserve. Of course it comes in

different forms. We have very valuable resources in our province,

whether we go into the northern part or whether we are looking at the

interior of our province, where we have some of the world's most

valuable tree-fruit country. We have some very valuable resources in

our forests. We have very valuable resources in the lower mainland,

where we have the ability to produce many commodities that can't be

produced in many other parts of the world. So leave no doubt in the

minds of anyone that I place a great deal of value on the islands, as I

do on all other parts of our province.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the House here that, just as an example and

a demonstration of my interest in the islands and the work of the Islands Trust,

at the request of the Islands Trust my ministry jointly funded a study into

island heritage buildings. I just want to congratulate Islands Trust, under

the leadership of their chairman, Mr. Humphries, who conducted this study and

have produced a tremendous piece of material, something that I think will be

most valuable in years to come in our schools and in our libraries, and very

important indeed to our tourist industry. I have discussed this item with our

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), and as soon as he saw it he said: "My

goodness, we must get some copies of that. That's great work." Mr.

Speaker, this great work is the result of a coordinated, cooperative, partnership

approach to doing what can be done to benefit the Gulf Islands.

So, Mr. Speaker, let there be no question in anyone's mind that as

far as I'm concerned, and I speak for the government, the Islands Trust

is here to stay, and the islands will be protected, and the islands

will be assisted in producing the greatest value for those islands and

for the people of this province.

There has been a great deal of talk about letters received in

respect to the Islands Trust, and each member who wrote letters and

referred to letters supporting the Islands Trust was being truthful,

because I too received those letters. The reason for those letters was

the review that I commissioned of all regional districts including the

Islands

[ Page

5655 ]

Trust...attracted those letters, because again

those narrow-minded, those suspicious-minded people who would think the

worst of all things suspected that we were looking again at doing away

with the Islands Trust. There was absolutely no intention of that at

all, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that the trustees and the chairman, in

spite of the meetings that we have had.... We have had some meetings

prior to this. They did have my assurance that that would happen. But

the review attracted those letters. They attracted those letters

because on my instructions the public were asked for their views of the

Islands Trust. The support was overwhelming that the Islands Trust

should be preserved, and it will be preserved.

There have been a number of people who have opposed the amendment to

the act, and we also have a number of people who have supported it by

way of telephone calls and letters. So we have an even balance there.

But the fact that these letters were received from all of those people

supporting the Trust proves that I am right — that the Trust should

stay, and the Trust will stay.

But as I pointed out as I introduced the bill, some housekeeping had

to take place. On the explanatory note of the bill it states very

simply: "This act enables the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to provide

staff assistance to the Islands Trust." Now if you read the act....

Those people across the floor obviously have not read it. They've had

their notes written for them by their research department and sadly

have really not delved into it individually. But if you read the act

you will find out quite clearly that the Islands Trust do have the

authority to appoint and set salaries for staff. If, Mr. Speaker, they

wish to retain the services of consultants or specialists or anyone

else outside of the staff itself, then they may do so with the

authority or the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Now the act as it's written gives them the authority to appoint and

set salaries, but it does not give them the authority that they require

to pay these salaries. The employees that stand there today, with the

exception of one, are members of the bargaining unit — the BCGEU — and

as such are indeed part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff.

However, there is no legal authority in there for me to assign staff to

the Trust to carry out their duties. So what we are doing here is

simply giving the ministry that authority. We had no intentions of

removing these staff members from the bargaining unit — not at all. We

are simply going to make legal the need for this ministry to assign

staff to the Islands Trust to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Islands Trust have my assurance, as does this

House, that they will be amply supported in carrying out their mandate.

That doesn't mean to say, however, that we are going to simply assign

staff as requests come in. I have occasions to refuse to assign staff

in some functions within my own ministry simply because I have a

responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to make sure that

things are done in the most efficient manner and in a least-cost way.

But the fact that we have reduced our ministry staff over the past

couple of years and cut our cost of operating has not caused any

deterioration in the services that we provide. The services that this

ministry provides, Mr. Speaker, are as good as, if not better than,

they have been in the past, and those services will continue, and the

quality and efficiency of delivery of those services will continue to

be improved upon.

The act, as I pointed out earlier, is simply a housecleaning

process. It is something that was absolutely necessary in order to have

this thing operate as it should.

[3:00]

There was a question from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour

(Mr. Davis). It was to do with staffing. Mr. Speaker, I just want to

mention to that member that when one looks at the cost of the staffing

there, and at the decision most recently to add a staff member to

manage six people in there, one does have to question the economics.

Therefore there is no question that the people of the islands will

benefit from any staff changes that may be deemed to be an improvement

to increase the efficiency of the operation. But I repeat, Mr. Speaker,

that under no circumstances will any move be made to make it difficult

or impossible for the Islands Trust to carry out its mandate.

There has also been some criticism from the opposition about my

attempting to remove power from the Islands Trust and bring it into the

hands of the ministry. Absolute nonsense! There is absolutely no

thought at this moment — nor do I anticipate that there will be any

need for any thought — to change the structure of the Islands Trust

itself. They are well represented by very interested people, people who

are dedicated to the responsibilities that they have taken on. I just

want to put to rest.... We have no intentions at all of taking away any

of that authority. The thrust of this ministry over the past year and a

half has been to decentralize, as has just been discovered by the

national NDP, which recently reported that they have at long last

realized that centralization doesn't work; what is going to work is

decentralization. That was reported yesterday in the Times-Colonist . Their own parent party out of Ottawa has at long last decided that centralization of these matters doesn't work.

I also have an

article here — I must point it out — that there has

been a committee struck, I believe by the government of Manitoba, to

look into the possibility of doing away with the election of a mayor.

Here we have an opposition party that keeps accusing this government of

doing things that indeed their own party....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many times

during my debate the minister interrupted to say that I was off the

topic. If ever there was a time he was off the topic, I would certainly

say that introducing issues from Manitoba is off the topic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, this debate has had an awful lot of

latitude, hon. member, and the Chair will decide who is and is not

relevant. Please proceed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record

here that this ministry has absolutely no intention of grabbing power,

as has been suggested; rather, we intend to run an efficient operation

in the interests of all the people. I will continue to meet with

Islands Trust people as it is possible. There is a request at hand at

the moment by the chairman of the Islands Trust, Mr. Humphries, for a

meeting. Because of my schedule, I have asked my parliamentary

secretary to sit down with Mr. Humphries and indeed have that meeting.

I also plan to visit all of the islands, hopefully this year. I have

already accepted an invitation to speak very shortly to a group on one

of the islands. I'm sure that whenever this all passes over, and after

I've had a chance to meet with them, everyone out there will agree that

it indeed was a tempest in a

[ Page 5656 ]

teapot. A great deal of time has been lost in

getting into more important legislation — legislation that is going to

get people back to work in this province. I look forward to getting on

to some of that legislation to get our unemployed back to work.

With that, I now move second reading of this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

NAYS 20

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lea

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Blencoe

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the name Davis on the affirmative?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe so, hon. member.

Bill 30, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[3:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

WORKPLACE ACT

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm pleased to stand in my place today and

move second reading of the Workplace Act, which will transfer the

duties of the occupational environment branch, currently within the

Ministry of Labour, to the Workers' Compensation Board.

The proposed Workplace Act and the regulations made under the act will replace

the now outdated Factory Act. Matters of health, safety and comfort, and the

well-being of the employees and the public in factories, offices and shops,

will now be the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. This

consolidation of occupational safety and health services will result in far

more efficient and effective services and a more efficient inspection procedure.

It will benefit all of the partners in the system, as well as provide a common

source of education and enforcement of the statutory provisions.

It should be noted, too, that under

section 7 of the Workplace Act,

12 of the employees currently within the Ministry of Labour will be

transferred, along with their seniority, to the Workers' Compensation

Board.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of the Workplace Act.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the House might give us a

translation of that speech. It was in a language I didn't quite

understand. I ran against a candidate in the last election who had a

similar foreign language that made it very difficult to know what he

was talking about. I must say that we're going to have to ask the

Minister of Labour to slow down a little bit when he reads prepared

material.

I want to say, first of all, in respect to the Workplace Act, that

in principle the opposition agrees with the concept of transferring the

responsibilities for occupational health from the Ministry of Labour to

the Workers' Compensation Board. We have in the past advocated such a

transfer, and we believe that an integrated administration through the

Workers' Compensation Board is appropriate. That's the first point I'd

like to make.

The second point I'd like to make is that we're going to oppose this

bill. I'll tell the House why, Mr. Speaker. There has been

approximately $1 million in the budget of the Ministry of Labour for

the administration of the occupational environment branch of the

Ministry of Labour. When the transfer is made from the ministry to the

Workers' Compensation Board, no provisions are allowed for the Workers'

Compensation Board to raise revenue to meet that extra million-dollar

expenditure. In fact, what we've had in the last nine years, if my

count is correct, is six annual freezes in assessments at the Workers'

Compensation Board. No longer does workplace health and safety have its

funding relate to the costs involved.

The Workers' Compensation Board has had to cut back in a variety of

areas, particularly inspection. They've had to be tougher in an unfair

way on workers who have been injured and who have filed claims, as a

result of insufficient revenues coming into the board each and every

year.

This transfer of responsibility adds additional costs in the amount

of about a million dollars a year to the Workers' Compensation Board.

One could argue, and I'm sure the minister will, that a million dollars

in the budget of the WCB is not very much; and in percentage terms it's

not — I grant that. But it's yet another burden on the WCB when in fact

they have not nearly enough money at the present time to properly

protect health and safety in this province, not nearly enough money to

properly adjudicate claims and pay workers who should be paid for work

loss and often for permanent disability.

I don't intend to use this bill to deal with all of the inadequacies

of the Workers' Compensation Board. We would have to spend at least as

long on this legislation as we did on the Islands Trust if we did that.

We'll take the opportunity during the estimates of the minister to

outline what we consider to be some very serious problems in terms of

occupational health and safety in this province. I'm sure the minister

would agree there are some very serious problems. The other day in the

House, in answer to a question from the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), he suggested that Rome wasn't built in a day. The implication

of course was that

[ Page 5657 ]

the former minister had burned it down while the government fiddled — if I've got my analogies close to correct, Mr. Speaker.

There is some very real concern with transferring an important

branch such as the occupational environment branch to the Workers'

Compensation Board, for a number of reasons, one of which I have

mentioned — the fact of inadequate funding at the WCB. Another relates

to the fact that over the years the history of the OEB has been to be

quite progressive in comparison to the WCB. They have led on many

issues — a good branch. As with so many parts of government, when you

get far enough away from the cabinet offices, the public servants who

run the departments or the branches quite often do an excellent job. In

this case that was the situation. The OEB was run well, it was doing

innovative work, and it led the field in terms of dealing with

occupational hazards and with environmental health, beyond the mandate

of the Workers' Compensation Board. And the mandate of the Workers'

Compensation Board has not been amended, to date at least. There is no

indication that I know of that the minister intends to broaden the

mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board in respect of workplace or

occupational health and safety.

That leads to the concern that the good work being done at the OEB

will not be continued at the WCB, because the pattern at the WCB right

now is in fact to cut down the number of inspections. Mr. Speaker, I

ask the minister to have a look at how many safety inspectors have

taken early retirement in the last little while and how many new ones

have been hired to replace them. I suspect the answer to the first

question is "a lot" and the answer to the second question is "none."

There are very real, serious concerns about inspection.

We were talking about the Coquihalla Highway in the House the other

day. I know of a case on the Coquihalla Highway where a worker was

injured and, because that particular contractor had no health and

safety people, someone from an adjoining contractor's site had to come

to administer first aid. Not only that, but the poor guy had to be

hauled out of the site on a piece of plywood instead of a stretcher.

It's that kind of thing that comes when you don't have proper

inspection. I'm told — and I can't prove this, but I'm told — that on

that particular construction site no inspections had been done. It

stands to reason why that particular contractor gets away with it,

because his name is Kerkhoff.

But that's the pattern that's happening. I'm not blaming the

inspector or the inspectors or the inspection branch. I'm blaming the

policies of the government, which have interfered with the ability of

the WCB to properly conduct its mandate to inspect sites, to ensure

that safe practices are taking place and to make sure that proper

health and safety programs are in place.

There are examples like that all over this province — in logging

camps, in sawmills and everywhere else. If it weren't for the fact that

union-management safety committees — where they exist, in unionized

firms — weren't on the ball, we would have chaos on our industrial

sites in this province, in terms of health and safety.

While the lack of inspection is going on, while the blind eye is

being turned and while standards are diminished, what's the response of

the government? Not to say that assessments should meet needs but that

costs should be balanced out by revenues — not to do that; they freeze

the assessments — and, secondly, not to bring in amendments to the

Workers Compensation Act which might help to address some of these

problems. But what's the response? The response is to bring in a bill,

the Workplace Act, which loads yet further responsibilities on the WCB

in an area where they haven't been doing very well — and not through

any fault of the staff who are involved in that particular area, but

because the board has decided to de-emphasize workplace health and

safety for any number of reasons.

The primary one I more than suspect is that they want to try in the

short term to reduce the costs to employers of doing business by

reducing their WCB assessments. It's a shortsighted policy, because in

the long term that increases costs, not just in purely financial terms

but also in terms of what society loses when workers are off the job.

The media talk often in this province about all the time lost because

of strikes and lockouts. You know, it's a smidgen compared to what's

lost through industrial accidents and disease. Until we start to take

these issues seriously, we on this side of the House have some very

real problems supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the bill the explanatory note that says: "The purpose

of this bill is to provide for safety in the workplace." This bill will

not save one faller's life, will not save workers' health and safety,

will not prevent industrial disease. Bills don't do that. Commitments with

an appropriate attitude to a proper program are what provide safety in the workplace.

I might just say in parentheses, while I'm on the explanatory note,

that I'd like the Minister of Labour — and perhaps other ministers

could take a hint from this — to take a look at Bill 33, the one that

was introduced today, the Charter of Rights amendment, in which

amendments were spelled out in a way we can deal with clearly and with

some real explanation. It might be useful in the future for some of

these pieces of legislation to have more than the inane — if I might

say that and, I guess, apologize to the drafter of the words; but it's

the government's responsibility — explanatory note that says the bill

is to provide for safety in the workplace. That's not what the bill

provides for. The bill is to do other things. It's to replace the

Factory Act. It's to transfer the OEB to the WCB. Why doesn't it say

that?

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak very much longer. I keep getting

more files, but we're not talking about a major piece of legislation in

terms of this Legislature. We're not talking about something that's

going to take us two or three days to debate. I don't think that that

would be appropriate at all for this particular bill. But I do want to

reiterate the major points. The first is that in philosophical terms we

agree with the idea that the OEB be integrated into the WCB. But we

cannot support this bill at this time, when funding is not provided,

when the WCB itself is in chaos, when health and safety standards are

diminished in virtually every area of our province, and when there is

no apparent commitment on the part of the government to bring in the

necessary complementary amendments to the WCB act, which would go

together with this particular legislation so that the Workplace Act

could be more effective.

Mr. Speaker, I realize this is perhaps a committee stage kind of

discussion, but the minister referred to

section 7 in his comments, so

I want to now as well.

Section 7 is one of these catch-22 clauses that

are very difficult to oppose because what they do is very nice on the

surface. What it basically does is make sure that the employees at the

OEB are transferred together with all their seniority to the WCB. But

what

[ Page 5658 ]

we're doing, in having this particular

section in

this legislation, is flying in the face of the collective agreement

negotiated between the workers at the WCB and the board, the

commissioners. The collective agreement spells out how to deal with

seniority.

Now if I were standing in the House speaking on behalf of the

workers who are being transferred, I would applaud this particular

section because apparently there are some guarantees for them. But

when, on the other hand, I'm standing in this House thinking about the

people who are working in that particular part of the WCB right now,

whose seniority will be dramatically affected by this particular

section, I have an obvious conflict, don't I? So, as I usually like to

do when these kinds of issues are confronted, I say what is right in

theory. What is right in theory, what is right in principle in a case

like this, is that the legislation guarantee that appropriate

negotiations are conducted to integrate the seniority lists and to

guarantee the workers, but not impose, as this does, a provision right

on that particular collective agreement.

[3:30]

I realize this is something we may want to do a bit more of in

committee stage, because it's a complicated area. But there's something

wrong, in my view, with this kind of interference in a

freely-arrived-at collective agreement between consenting parties. If

it was a business transaction and a contract between two businesses,

the members on that side of the House would be very loath to do this

kind of thing. But, of course, when it comes to workers it doesn't much

matter, it seems.

I think I've said what I want to say, Mr. Speaker. We'll have some

further comments during second reading. In conclusion, let me say that

I wish we could have had this bill after the appropriate changes were

made. I'm delighted that the integration is taking place, but having

seen the mess at the WCB, the minister should know that members on this

side of the House will not be supporting Bill 4.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we do regret being unable to support

this bill. There are some other aspects that worry me as well, and

that's the question of government continually taking regulatory powers

out of legislation, moving them to the cabinet and having regulations

come by order-in-council. We will recall that the old Factory Act had a

number of regulations that were enshrined in law. Now we have

regulations that are going to be decided on behind those closed cabinet

doors. So it is of some concern, not particularly so much for this bill

but for other legislation that has passed in this assembly since 1976.

We've had a real erosion of the authority of the Legislature in

British Columbia. Bill after bill coming in is nothing much more than

providing the cabinet with legislative authority; that is, taking

legislative authority away from the assembly and giving it to the

cabinet. That is one concern that I have.

I share my colleague's major concern about the whole question of the

transfer of the work of the old Occupational Environment Board to the

Workers' Compensation Board, and of course all the inspections and so

on. Mr. Speaker, there has been word that there will be no increase in

the WCB rates to those who pay the bill. So there are no new revenues

that we're looking forward to for WCB.

Presently the Workers' Compensation Board isn't doing the job that's

necessary in terms of occupational health and safety. If they can't do

it now, how are they going to do it with this increased responsibility?

This increased responsibility is going to cost $1 million, and there is

no source of revenue to the board to provide for this increased

responsibility. It just goes without saying that this legislation

either comes too early or too late, or something, because there isn't

the means to administer what we have before us. That is why we are so

particularly concerned about it, and that's why we oppose it. We don't

oppose the principle; we oppose what's being done, because we can't see

that it's possible to administer it properly.

If the Workers' Compensation Board cannot look after their own

responsibilities now, and they can't.... I agree with my colleague that

we'll certainly be discussing this a lot more in the minister's

estimates than we will under this bill. If they can't look after the

responsibilities now, how can we expect them to look after their

responsibilities when they are going to be increased to the tune of at

least $1 million?

There are numbers of groups moving around the province. The minister

has been going around talking to people about the Workers' Compensation

Board and other areas of his responsibility. Presently the B.C.

Federation of Labour has a committee that has heard peoples' responses

to this question from all over the province. As a matter of fact, I

attended a meeting just the other day. There are any number of briefs

from all sectors, from all areas of the province and also from all the

different employer-employee sectors giving evidence to this committee,

and I'm sure it's the same kind of evidence that the minister is

getting indicating a complete lack of people's feeling toward the

compensation board in a positive way and a very great criticism in

opposition to the way things are being handled at the present time.

So there are going to be cuts, as I see it, in vocational

rehabilitation spending, and those cuts are just not viable at the

present time. Now if the minister had come in with a companion piece of

legislation to show us how this was to be done, how this could be

implemented without very much hurting the system, then I would say

"great." But at the present time there is nothing like that on the

order paper and nothing like that even suggested. So we just have to

oppose it.

We oppose because beyond the fact that we find this additional $1

million that is being applied to WCB, we also find that to save money

they've been closing regional offices, cutting vocational

rehabilitation spending, dismantling the hearing branch. All that, and

we have this to face them as well, and what are they going to do to

look after this responsibility? Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing

right now is finding ways and means of saving lives, saving people's

health. We're not doing it with this piece of paper in any way, shape

or form.

I see cut after cut, and if that's what's going to finance this....

People come to my office and all my colleagues' offices and I'm sure

the offices of the government members and tell us how they've waited

and waited for appeals — how they have been mishandled, having been

hurt in the workplace, and wind up off compensation on welfare through

no fault of their own. Now if we're going to have more of this as a

response to this particular change in legislation, then I bitterly

oppose it. Every one of us who sits in this Legislature gets concern

after concern placed on his or her desk by constituents who have had a

grievance with the WCB.

I just do not feel that an additional $1 million in obligations on

the WCB will add to anything other than the injury of the people who

have already been injured. Those people are out there, and if any

members of this Legislative Assembly

[ Page

5659 ]

can get up and say that they're not hearing from them, then I suggest they're deaf, because they are hearing from them.

WCB is becoming cruel, and maybe not of their own making but because

they have not enough money to provide the level of insurance that they

should. I'm positive that the word is down there: "Squeeze as tight as

you can. We can afford no more claims." Well, if that's the case, the

thing isn't being run properly.

When the minister comes in with something comprehensive that can

assure us that this can be done, we'll support him. Presently, however,

I'm afraid we can't.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from

the members opposite, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and appreciate their

contribution to the debate. The Workers' Compensation Board anticipated

this change, and out of their $600 million annual budget they have

anticipated and budgeted for this change in this fiscal year.

The members mentioned an area of grave concern to me as well as to

every member of this assembly; that is, the backlog of individuals

waiting for appeals to the board of review. While that isn't covered in

this bill, nor is the funding for it provided directly.... It's funded

by the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Labour allocates the

individuals and the teams that are selected to hear those appeals. It's

an area that I have a concern about. The backlog has occurred since the

early seventies and now stands at about 5,000. Clearly none of us can

take comfort from that type of situation. We want to get that resolved

as quickly as we can.

I've had an opportunity to talk with some of the people involved in

the B.C. Federation of Labour, along with the president of the B.C.

Federation of Labour, employer groups and, indeed, the people who

volunteer a great deal of time and effort on the job site trying to

make the place a better place for all of their colleagues to work in

and participate in. I've had a chance to talk to them, and we will be

dealing with that over the course of the next several weeks as we get

further advice from them on how to deal with the problem.

So this bill has nothing to do with it. The member for North Island

mentioned that it won't save a faller's life. The bill covers areas in

offices, factories and places like that, replacing the old and outdated

Factory Act, and has nothing to do with that area of responsibility of

the Workers' Compensation Board. But I will be pleased to come back to

the members, and I look forward to the advice and support of all of the

members later on as we make some changes to the appeal process that

will, we hope, speed up that process.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

[3:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

Lea

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

Wallace

Blencoe

Passarell

Bill 4, Workplace Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief comments

and a few questions for the minister on his vote. I would like to say

that I think that most people in the province feel that the present

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is a very well-meaning

minister, but unfortunately he is having to carry the ball for the

Premier and the Premier's fiscal policies of restraint. The effects on

the school system are indeed serious.

I think that the government is hoping that the really disastrous

effects will not catch up with them during their tenure. But I can

assure you that they have sown the seeds of a very tragic time for some

of the children in our school system. The areas of cutbacks may not

appear to be having a major effect right at this moment, but we now

find that parents' groups, teachers' groups and trustee groups across

the province are beginning to see that the restraint placed upon the

educational system in this province is indeed affecting the welfare of

their children. That is why, I think, the Minister of Education is

under constant attack from various areas of the province, and rightly

so, because the government which brings in these policies must face the

results of those policies.

I know that the education critic for our party has already outlined

in a very clear, articulate manner the detailed results of some of

these policies of the Social Credit government. My primary concern —

and this is where I want to hit some basic questions to you, Mr.

Minister — is this whole area of finance and restraint. I understand

that you have reorganized your ministry, and the concern that I have

heard expressed is that this ministry reorganization and restructure is

primarily oriented to financial management. I would like to ask the

minister if he could give us a breakdown, for the interest of the

committee members here, on just what he has done with this

restructuring.

My concern is that the educational component of the ministry is

being smothered and what we have taking over is the financial side of

the ministry, to the detriment of the educational program. I wonder if

the minister can explain to us the new structure. I have been talking

to people out there who are involved in education and have a sincere

commitment to it, and they are concerned that the ministry is primarily

turning into a bookkeeper's type of ministry, with little concern being

expressed at this time about the educational

[ Page 5660 ]

programming. I personally believe that this is a

constraint that has been imposed on that minister by the Premier and

his fiscal policies. Once again it means that the bookkeeper mentality

is taking over and the educational component, which deals with what

happens to that child or student in the classroom, is losing out.

It is an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, that when I first came

into this Legislature — and we were dealing at that time with the old

Social Credit government — the opposition members at that time,

including me, were finding ourselves making the same kind of speech I

find myself making today in condemning this bookkeeper mentality, which

doesn't seem to show a concern for the educational philosophy of the

ministry.

That leads me to my second question. The minister has spent a great

deal of time — and has actually been given praise for his ability —

citing figures and statistics to refute the arguments brought up by his

critics, but at no time can I say that the minister has shown the

people of British Columbia that he has a philosophy on education. He

has not really said to us where he sees the system over which he

presides going to equip our students for the year 2000, because we have

to work towards that now.

As I say, the minister is very fluent with the figures. We know you

have to deal with money, but on the other hand, don't become entirely

obsessed with that. Can you tell us where you really want to go? You

are in a very sensitive area. There is nothing more important than

dealing with the minds of young people, and yet we don't know where

that minister would like to see the educational system go. There are

two questions about the financing structure and your philosophy on

education.

My third question deals with the area which I am afraid this

minister, as well as other members of his government and past ministers

under this government, has really been very negligent in dealing with,

and that's the whole area of family life education. I think more and

more today we are seeing the results of a lack of clear leadership

given from the Ministry of Education — and may I say the Ministry of

Health, too — in the whole area of encouraging proper family life, or

sex education, if you wish, in the schools of British Columbia.

[4:00]

I believe that the increase in teenage pregnancies in this province

is a disgrace, and I think we have to look very seriously — and I

intend to discuss this again under the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen'

s) estimates — at the responsibility of government to give some

leadership in the prevention of these teenage pregnancies. I personally

feet that to turn your back on the whole area of sex education, as I

know the former minister, who is now the Minister of Universities (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), did.... He wouldn't open his mouth on it; he wouldn't

touch it. He was probably afraid of a vociferous, vocal minority out

there who would immediately attack the government.

But I think there comes a time when the government must take a stand

on these issues and not hide from them. At this time I think we are

seeing the results of ten years of neglect by the Ministry of Education

and the Ministry of Health in creating and assisting in the development

of good family life and sex education programs in our schools. The ones

that have survived have survived primarily because of a commitment by

teachers and administrators in a particular district. But other

districts who do not want to do it are given no leadership or

encouragement by the minister, as far as I know.

I think the results speak for themselves. I ask the minister: here is an area that you could give leadership in.

This is my final question, and you may wonder what this has to do

with the Minister of Education at this time. It's the area of peace. I

want to ask if you would give consideration to encouraging school

boards to bring into their curriculums some of the programs on peace

and the discussions of nuclear warfare which are taking place in some

schools and systems in the United States. This does not mean that you

get one side only discussed, but what is being done.... There are

curriculums and programs prepared where the students have an

opportunity to hear people who are for nuclear disarmament and then

those who feel that you must maintain nuclear weapons. The point is

that we must make the students who come out of our schools aware of two

sides of these questions. Many of us feel very strongly on one side. I

personally am very strongly for anti-nuclear programs, but I accept the

fact that if you're going to have a good educational system, you have

to give both sides and let the students think for themselves.

I know this is taking place in schools in the United States. I can't

think of anything more important, because unless we face this

tremendous problem of possible nuclear warfare, all we do here becomes

meaningless. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren. So I

would like to hear the minister comment on those.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the latter point that has

been raised involving controversial issues, I am advised that the

ministry is working on a policy on controversial issues and that I can

expect that something will be coming to my office — I suppose the

expression is overused — in due course. I concede to the member that I

haven't spent any time on the subject matter of controversial issues,

and I think that perhaps is understandable in view of....

MRS. DAILLY: You've got enough controversial issues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I think that's quite correct. This

has been a difficult issue, and we've had a lot to do. But I point out

to the member for Burnaby North that the last point which was advanced

is something which we wish to address. There will be a controversial

issues package. How it's going to be handled or how it will be

implemented I do not know. But at least thought has been given to it.

Now as far as the family life program is concerned, I can tell you that there is a document in my office now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Release it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There will be lots of documents which will be released. Let's face it: government is an open book anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially yours.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right. I've been very open with everything that we've talked about.

As for the family life program, the member made reference to

something over the period of the last ten years involving the matter of

pregnancies. That takes us back to 1974-75. I recognize this, and I

guess when I get some time to have a good look.... The manual put on my

desk is rather a heavy one. There has been some call, interestingly

enough, to have

[ Page

5661 ]

it at least published and placed in school

libraries. However, when I was touring the province, meeting with all

of the school boards, I was getting a number of views expressed on this

particular issue. Some boards were aware that the ministry had been

working on it, and said: "We don't want you to put it out." Others were

saying: "We would like to have it."

Frankly I am inclined to agree with your position, Madam Member,

that it's something that has got to be addressed. I don't think that by

putting our heads in the sand we're going to resolve the problem. It

may be that if nothing is ventured, nothing is gained. But I want you

to know that the manual has been prepared. Whether it is adequate or

not, I'm not really in a position to say — except to tell you that a

draft has been prepared.

The allegations with respect to the accounting aspect of the

ministry, I suppose, are in the eyes of the beholder. But I think we

can go back.... I don't want to go over a long period of history,

because there is nothing to be gained by it. It's very easy for me to

get warmed up and start firing out a number of points. I recognize that

there has been a great deal to do with finance in the Ministry of

Education. I think it was something that had to be addressed. My

objective, to be honest with you, is that I think the Ministry of

Education, as far as public schools are concerned, must be involved in

the finance portion. I don't think there's any dispute about that. I

think government must be involved with respect to teachers'

certification. We certainly have to be involved in curriculum to a

major degree and, I think, in examinations and assessments.

Yes, I have reorganized the ministry. There were a number of

changes. There were a number of retirements, as you are well aware. I

think that for the most part everything went very smoothly. I don't

recall ever having any employees who were leaving make untoward

statements. It was a difficult task, but I think it worked out

reasonably well. Yes, the size of the ministry has been reduced from

something in the order of 711 people three years ago. Our complement

now, as far as full-time equivalents permitted under the budget are

concerned, is something in the order of about 484. I think it's down 31

percent. I can advise the member, though, that we have some breathing

space in here, because the actual number of people employed in the

ministry is, I would say, roughly 435 or 440. So we have some room. One

of the areas where I would like to use that room, if I could, is

curriculum development.

Yesterday a comment was made with respect to fiscal matters and our

involvement, and I would just like to raise this point. Since I was

assigned the portfolio, we have been involved with graduation

requirements. There has been discussion about course content for grades

11 and 12, and, of course, there was the reintroduction of external

examinations. Each of those items has taken a great deal of time. I

think that the number of items we have covered in a period of less than

two years has been quite significant.

The other item is this: when you ask what my personal objectives

are, or my personal philosophy.... Certainly I have a number of ideas.

But what I'm concerned about — and I don't think I can be accused of

copping out of a direct response to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) — is this: we have put, by design, to the public of British

Columbia an opportunity to tell us what they want for their school

system; what they, the public, the owners of the public school system,

want. The document, as you know, was entitled "Let's Talk About

Schools." The response has been really quite significant. The response

was so heavy, as a matter of fact — so I'm advised, anyway — that it's

going to take some time to analyze all of the material.

All those who decided to take the response document, which was the

companion volume to the original document, answer all of the questions,

and put forth their views of what they expect the public education

system to deliver, are entitled to have each of their views analyzed

and coded. In addition to that, as you know, there are extensive

interviews going on throughout the province at this time by the polling

agency that was retained by the public school act review committee. I

might mention that all of those documents, as I said yesterday, will be

made public immediately — not by government. It won't be held up or put

in a closet for the appropriate time. I'm quite prepared to listen to

all comments. Obviously some are going to be favourable towards

government, others are not. But that's life. I think that if I make

comments with respect to what the School Act is going to contain, it

would be rather presumptuous of me.

I don't know whether or not the member agrees with that, but I have

held fast to the commitment I made many months ago that I would not

advance my views and make them public to any particular body while the

public was advancing its views; while, in fact, the research committee

is analyzing all of the responses, and during the time that the report

is compiled, prepared, written and delivered, together with all of the

accompanying material. You can rest assured that that report will

obviously have considerable influence on the structure of a proposed

School Act.

I think I've covered the items that you have raised, the first

involving controversial issues, the second on family life programs. The

reorganization of the ministry: yes, it's smaller than it once was. I

think there has been a great deal of emphasis, when we consider that

only one division in the ministry is involved with finance; the others

are involved with curriculum, examinations, certification, facilities,

construction and statistics. They're all there. I think we have also

been able to canvass those matters which are related purely to

education, as distinct from the funding of public education, graduation

requirements, curriculum content and external exams.

[4:15]

I conclude my remarks by repeating that when it's over with, what

I.... My object here is obviously to get the autonomy back to school

districts and to keep the ministry as a nucleus only. I think jobs can

be done very well by districts. To confine the job of the ministry to

the areas of finance, certification, curriculum and examinations — that

is the object. The period we're going through now has been a difficult

one. As a matter of policy, government felt that these were areas that

required checking at this time. I will just remind the member that

those comments were advanced at the time Bill 6 came in.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) for giving me a few moments here. I'd like

to talk to the minister and have him reply, hopefully, regarding the

future of university transfer programs at the Castlegar campus of

Selkirk College, as well as other aspects involving that college and, I

suppose, colleges in general around the province.

A year ago, or two years ago — whenever it was — the David Thompson

University Centre in Nelson was closed. As many courses as could be

were absorbed into Selkirk

[ Page 5662 ]

College, both at Castlegar and at Nelson, but

fundamentally at Castlegar, in order to maintain those courses at the

first and second-year levels. What happened is that following that

absorption in the previous year, in the current year the minister

ordered the college to reduce its overall expenditure by 10 percent.

The Selkirk College budget for the present year has been reduced by $1

million, or 10 percent over the previous level. The previous level was

already cut to the bone due to previous cuts, as well as to this

enforced absorption of whatever could be salvaged out of the closing of

the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson.

This year's cut was the largest single cut, in percentage terms,

that any community college in the province had to absorb. I would like

the minister to reconsider these cuts and certainly to reconsider any

further cuts in future years at Selkirk College.

The community college system is a very precious part of

post-secondary education in British Columbia. Less than half of the

people who do go on to post-secondary training in the metropolitan

urban areas of the province — essentially those within commuting

distance of Simon Fraser, UBC or UVic.... Less than half of the people

who attend these universities go to post-secondary education if they

are from the so-called rural areas of the province — although I do not

like the term "rural areas, " because B.C. is not a rural province;

it's a collection of small- and medium-sized cities. But, Mr. Chairman,

people who live in your riding of Prince George or Trail or Kelowna or

smaller communities such as Princeton or 100 Mile House pay the same

taxes for post-secondary education as people who live in Victoria or

Vancouver. Yet less than half as many of those people, as a percentage

of the potential, go to universities as do those who live within

commuting distance of the universities. Considering the cost of going

to university, in terms not only of the fee structure and living costs

but of giving up income, this is not surprising.

The community colleges were supposed to at least partly fill this

gap. But the problem that has happened with many community colleges —

and I think Selkirk College is typical — is that, with the cuts the

minister and his predecessors have imposed on them, to all intents and

purposes the second-year parts of the degree-granting programs and

university transfer programs have been virtually emasculated. So really

the community college — and I'm thinking particularly of Selkirk —

consists essentially of two-year technologies and grade 13, or first

year of university. Those second-year programs at the transfer level

which still do exist are those which are an integral part of fulfilling

the requirements of one of the two-year technologies.

Giving an example, if a certain economics course at the second-year

university level is needed specifically, say, for the two-year commerce

program, then that economics course will be there; but other courses in

economics at the second year level will not be there. The same thing

could be said of physics — if there's a physics course that's essential

for the commercial pilot training, the forest technology or the nursing

program, it will be there. If it's a physics course with other

orientation, it will have gone. I believe this same pattern has been

repeated around the province, Mr. Chairman.

Less than ten years ago in 1976, perhaps the most modern — certainly

at that time one of the most modern and best equipped — recreational

facility at any community college was opened in Castlegar. Now, less

than ten years beyond that time, that facility is in danger of being

closed, not because the college council wants to close it but because

they've got to make some hard decisions about what they do with their

money. Here you have a community facility used by the college —

supported by the community with user fees, I might add, and fairly

stiff user fees — in danger of being closed. This is a facility, I want

to repeat, which is bought and paid for by the taxpayers of this

province. It's in danger of being closed because the college council

quite seriously has to look at that facility and say: "We've got to cut

out some of our programs." Perhaps recreation is something that is

going to have to be chopped out in order to make sure that they can

maintain the nursing program or the computer program or the wildland

recreation program or the forest program or one of the many excellent

two-year technology programs which are delivered by that institution.

So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf not only of my constituents in the West

Kootenays but of all those taxpayers who do not live within commuting

distance of one of the major universities.... And I'm not just talking

about high-school graduate students — that is, those young people who

have just graduated from high school — I'm talking about adults who

want access to a university education. They want a second or a third

chance to live at home, to work in their community, to bring in an

income for their family, and at the same time to improve themselves

academically. These people no longer have the same opportunities that

they had even two or three years ago to make proper use of the

community college program to prepare themselves for further

post-secondary training as, perhaps, at one of the metropolitan

institutions.

So I appeal to the minister. I ask you to attempt to persuade your

cabinet colleagues and Treasury Board to restore the funding, at least

partially but hopefully fully, for the community college system. It has

been stated that the 1982-86 cuts to the community colleges equal 43

percent in constant dollars. At the same time enrolment in those

community colleges continues to grow. Certainly not for lack of

business.... Enrolment, in spite of increased fees, continues to grow

in the community colleges.

It's growing because the people of B.C., whether they are 19- or

20-year-olds or whether they are 30-, 40-, 50- or 60-year-olds, want

those programs. They want those university transfer programs at the

first- and second-year level, and they want those technologies. That's

because they want to work. They want the opportunity either to improve

their ability to improve their income standard or to get a job at all.

The colleges have had a major role in upgrading the general level of

training, the general level of academic education in the province. I

think we should remember that. We should remember what those colleges

were established for. We should remember what a large investment the

taxpayers of the province have in the college system. And we should

sustain the programs in those colleges, because the people want them.

The people are enrolling in programs; they are taking courses. They are

passing their technologies, and in many cases, in spite of the bad job

market, they're finding jobs because of what they get out of those

college programs. I don't want to see them eliminated.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like to make reference to the

reduction this year — to the member for Rossland-Trail — for Selkirk. I

don't believe it was 10 percent; I think it was 6.2 percent over last

year's budget.

[ Page 5663 ]

I would like to point out something else, and this came up during

the debate last year when we were discussing David Thompson University

Centre. As you know, we take the province and divide it into regions,

and we look at what the per capita cost is per region. By far — and I

mean by far — the highest cost per capita for the operation of a

regional college was in the Selkirk region. It seems to me that it was

something in the order of — including David Thompson — $260 or $270 per

capita. With the exclusion of David Thompson, the cost per capita in

the Selkirk region is now $218.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would just like to compare that cost with other districts. We can

go to the lower mainland and look at Douglas College, and the cost per

capita is $58. Or we can go to the area where I am elected, Prince

George, and the per capita cost is $135. As far as tuition is concerned

— and I think it's reasonable when I ask what the tuition is — I am

told that it's something in the order of about $600 per year. I could

be corrected. Is that correct? My deputy has just pointed out that it's

$575, which I think is quite reasonable in view of the costs that

others have in other forms of higher learning within the province.

One of the reasons that Selkirk.... As you recall, it was one of the

first regional campuses that went in, and it was a very expensive

campus. I don't think that that's a secret which anybody is keeping to

themselves. When you compare Selkirk with the other regional colleges,

you find that there was a considerable amount of funding going in. The

object under the new funding formula for colleges was to bring equity

to all of the regions of British Columbia. That's why there was such

significant support from the administrators for the funding mechanism

which was put in about a year and a half ago. There was significant

support, including from the board of Selkirk College and its

administration.

I must be fair and tell the member that I do know that the college

principal, Leo Perra, feels that things are a little tight right now.

That's conceded, but Mr. Perra and the board also give recognition to

what we as a ministry are trying to do in using the funding mechanism

to bring equity. The same comment was made last year, incidentally, by

the former principal of Vancouver Community College, who found that

there was a great improvement even though Vancouver Community College

is an area where the student population is significant.

In Selkirk the second-year enrolment this year is higher than it was

the previous year. I am advised that some courses which they dropped

were no different than other courses which may have been dropped in

other colleges through lack of interest or demand. I can't give you

specific examples. If you have anything specific which you would like

to raise with me, I'd be most prepared to try to secure an answer for

you as soon as I can.

[4:30]

I would only like to raise again that I was pleased this year that

the government did allot 100 percent in total for funding of community

colleges — 100 percent of the 1984-85 amount, even with the adjustment

fund. We discussed the adjustment fund yesterday and what it contained

and what we would expect in return.

I understand there was some decline in the apprenticeship area, and

this is common not just to Selkirk College but also to a number of

colleges in the province involving the area of apprenticeship. You

know, one of the biggest disappointments I think I've ever had since

I've been in government happened as a result of the recession and the

economic downturn that we experienced. When I was in the Labour

portfolio, the greatest push that I ever made on anything in that area

was to increase the apprenticeship enrolment in British Columbia. I

think I can say with some pride that the apprenticeship was increased

from something in the order of 11,000 up to something in the order of

better than 19,000; it was almost 20,000. It was a very significant

increase. That was accomplished mostly through sweat off my brow,

pummeling everybody to assume their responsibilities. Of course, at

that time the colleges were absorbing many of the apprenticeship

programs throughout the province. But since that, through the times

that we've experienced in the last two or three years, we have seen a

significant decline in apprenticeships. Those apprenticeships are in

your area as well.

The only comforting item that I would like to offer is this:

government has recognized that the productivity in the college system

has been really quite significant. They are to be commended for the

work they have done. The response which the board chairman and college

principals gave was an encouraging one. There was an additional $2.4

million put in, 95 percent to 96 percent for operating, and the balance

is available to be used in a number of ways.

Incidentally, with respect to.... I know there's a cross in here;

I'm talking Rossland-Trail and then into Nelson-Creston, because we

have part of Selkirk College with the Rosemont campus in

Nelson-Creston. As I recall, some of the funding which we have for the

satellite campus was to assist.... One of the things that I was

concerned about, with the reductions we had experienced, was how it

would affect some of the satellite campuses. For Selkirk there was

funding in the satellite campus allocation to look after some of the

demands made by the Rosemont campus.

Another point was made yesterday: the attendance in colleges provincewide.

The figures which we have show an increase each year over the last four or five

years. At this time the highest number of college graduates have gone — 30.2

percent of high school graduates are taking either academic or technical programs

at the college level. That doesn't include vocational, and I don't have

the figures for that, as I mentioned yesterday, and of course it doesn't

include university.

MR. ROSE: I have.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good. I'll hear them in due course, no doubt.

MR. ROSE: Right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's fine. I hope that we're getting our figures from the same source.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't get yours from BCTF.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't they talk to you? BCTF are experts.

AN HON. MEMBER: BCSTA?

[ Page 5664 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, to relieve any anxiety which the

opposition may be having, I'd like them to know that we also often have

conversations with each of the organs that you have referred to.

I want the member for Rossland-Trail to know that I recognize that

the Selkirk region is the highest-funded per capita in British

Columbia. The reason that they're feeling a little bit tight in places

right now is that the phase-in allowance which was given to them of

course has been reduced. The reason it has been reduced is that we

wanted to bring some form of equity.

One of the concerns I have.... Through the talking that was going on

I didn't hear the campus or the building to which you were referring —

about how there might be a closure.

MR. D'ARCY: The gymnasium and recreational facilities.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The gymnasium and recreational facility at Selkirk? Okay, I will take note of that.

MR. D'ARCY: Just a few quick points. First of all I want to

say that I recognize.... When I used the figure of a 10 percent cut,

that was before you restored some of the funding and reduced the cut to

6 percent. I apologize for that. However, having said that, I want to

point out that if we assume inflation in 1985 to be 4 percent, which I

think is a reasonable projection, the cut in constant dollars will

still be 10 percent from the previous year. However, let's go on to

more important things.

The minister is correct that per capita there is a large community

college spending amount there relative to other areas. I'd like to

point out, though, that that's a fair comparison only if you compare

similar programs. If you compare the nursing program at

Selkirk-Castlegar with say a nursing program at Camosun and come up

with a higher figure, that's one thing. But surely the minister is

aware that one of the most expensive programs there, maybe the most

expensive program at any community college anywhere in British

Columbia, is the commercial pilot training program. It's the only place

in B.C. that has a commercial pilot training program. Students come

from all across Canada; they come from the United States. I presume

it's the presumption that it's not only academically and technically a

good place to have commercial pilot training. You have flown into the

Castlegar airport. The presumption is that if you can fly in and out of

there you can fly in and out of anywhere. It has a very good

reputation, and graduates from that program, even in today's not very

healthy state of the airline industry, have an extremely good record of

finding and keeping employment, both as pilots and as air traffic

controllers, in Canada and the United States.

Also, Mr. Chairman, there are two forestry technologies at Selkirk

College Castlegar: shall I call it commercial or logging forestry, as

well as wildland recreation forestry technology. Again, I want to

remind the minister that these two programs are comparatively costly to

deliver. There is a computer technology program that goes back to the

1960s. Of course it's been enhanced and improved as technology has

improved over the years — once again, an extremely expensive program to

deliver.

So if the minister wants to compare these programs against similar

programs in other institutions elsewhere and tell me that they've got a

soft touch there, then I'm prepared to agree with him, if he in fact

has that information. But simply to take an overall global figure

without comparing specific programs is an unfair comparison, with all

respect.

I just want to make one other point. The minister mentioned that the

number of apprentices in the region, especially at the Rosemont campus

in Nelson, has declined. This is not because people don't want to take

apprenticeships. It's not because apprentices don't have confidence in

the college training. It's because as industry in the region got leaner

and meaner — it didn't shut down, but basically got leaner and meaner —

they were forced to cut back on their staff, and that meant they had to

cut back on their trade staff. The first people to go when you cut back

on your trade staff are the newest people, and those are the

apprentices. And even though we have some apprentices who might be 40

or 50 years old and have 30 years' seniority in the plant, if they're

new as apprentices in the millwright shop or the electrician shop or

the instrument shop, they are very quickly the first, not necessarily

to get laid off in the plant but to have to bump back into an

operations job. I want to point out that there's been good cooperation

between the ministry and the college, and both management and the

unions in the plants, to try and keep on as many apprentices as

possible, especially if they were nearing the end of their program so

they didn't lose their whole thing by being laid off. But even so there

has been, as the minister pointed out, a great reduction in the number

of apprentices taking training at the Rosemont campus. That's because

of the state of the economy in general, not because of a decline in

desire for apprenticeship programs.

One last point, the last point for now, anyway.... One further point

would perhaps be better terminology. Selkirk College actually has three

campuses. It has the Rosemont campus in Nelson and the Castlegar

campus. It also has a Trail campus that is primarily a business school.

The lease on the building will be running out — not this year but next

year — and some concern has been expressed locally that the college is

not going to be allowed to renew that lease and continue a campus in

Trail with their business college. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman,

that a business college in Trail is a long tradition; it did not start

with Selkirk College. There has been a business college in Trail going

back to at least 1950. Again, the technology there, the graduates there

are highly respected, both within and outside of the region. Their

employment record, even in this economy, is very good. I want to

express my concern to the minister in advance: when that present lease

runs out in the fall of 1986, that the college council and the

administration of the college have the opportunity to renew that lease,

either in that building or in some other building, and continue the

operation of the Trail campus of Selkirk College.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The first question involved the cost of the nursing program, as I recall.

MR. D'ARCY: Aviation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, no. You raised two programs. You were talking about the cost, as I recall, and the comparative....

MR. D'ARCY: I said you have to compare similar programs in similar colleges.

[4:45]

[ Page 5665 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right. The point I wish to make is that

under the funding mechanism the actual cost of one particular program

is generally recognized in one of the areas. It involves either a

nursing or medical program of some kind. Where there is a distinction,

however, is in the aviation program. I am told that the students who

wish to enrol in that program pay a fee, and that fee is to an agency

which is contracted. Selkirk College contracts with a particular flying

school. The students themselves, I guess like anywhere else in the

province, have to pay a fee. There is some additional funding given;

however, it is not anywhere near what the cost is. One of the reasons

is that we find that tremendous distinction between the per capita cost

in the Selkirk region as compared to the provincial average when we

look to other colleges.

The apprenticeship program gave so much concern to the ministry and

the colleges, particularly those students who were in their fourth year

and ready to get their journeyman certificate, that a simulation

program was created by Selkirk Community College for those apprentices

who in fact were forced to become unemployed as a result of, as you

mentioned, the leaner and meaner times. So while they were unemployed,

at least they had that opportunity, through the simulation program, to

get their ticket. That seems to me a pretty good plug for your college.

Funding is not available for the Trail campus under the moneys

advanced this year, as far as a satellite campus is concerned. However,

that issue is being reviewed and will be reviewed by the joint

committee involved in the discussion of satellite campuses. It's given

me a bit of a problem this year, as you probably know. That committee,

as I mentioned — I'm not sure if I did — does consist of six or seven

principals from the various colleges.

To be honest with you, I'm quite amazed at the very close

relationship which exists between the staff in the Ministry of

Education and the college administrators.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's an unacceptable remark. I think

there's a very good relationship, and I think everybody has gained by

it. I like to see this type of cooperation, and it is occurring.

As far as the Trail campus is concerned, the news is that the

funding is not available. I think the member knew that. But it's

something that will be reviewed by the joint committee looking at the

satellite campus possibility.

I think we must remember that the distance between Trail and Castlegar is not all that much — something like 25 miles.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Twenty-two miles, but there's no transit.

Well, I can't respond to that question. This is the argument that's

being pushed by people throughout the province. I think that's what we

as a government have to be very careful about. The whole system could

be bled to death by the desire of people in some very small communities

which aren't that far apart to put in campuses, when perhaps there is a

more regional centre that most people can attend. I'm against the

concept, I guess, of the regional college.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I know this question has been asked

before, but I have to admit I don't quite understand the answer. It's

with regard to the interim legislation that is in place, which takes

away some of the legislative rights of school boards under the School

Act, mainly their ability to raise some taxation without going to

referendum. When is that going to end? I know that the legislation is

supposed to end at the end of 1986, but it seems to me that unless

there's a clear directive from the ministry to school boards letting

them know for sure that it's going to end at the end of 1986, then by

default that legislation is going to be carried over for a further six

months.

I'd like to know if the minister has made up his mind whether he's

going to send a directive. What is he going to indicate to the school

boards? Is there a chance that that legislation will be extended past

December 1986, or is the minister going to indicate to the school

boards that it ends for sure at the end of 1986?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the sunset provision,

December 31, 1986, is really quite clear. I recognize what you're

saying. I don't think we can, by default...because where in fact would

we have our authority? Something has to be done to take the place of

legislation which is in place right now.

My objective in having the discussion on schools is to bring in

either a White Paper or a bill, which will be prepared as soon as I

receive the report. I would dearly love to have that report no later

than the first week of May. There's obviously been a great deal of

concern with respect to autonomy. Autonomy was eroded, budgets were

capped — all conceded.

There has been considerable concern by school districts as to what's

going to happen in the future. The commitment that I make is that I

wish to bring in a new School Act as soon as I have the material. I

have no intention of starting to prepare any such documentation until I

hear what the people who have responded have to say. I guess the best I

can give the member for Prince Rupert is that obviously there has to be

a mechanism available to school districts to generate revenue for their

purposes. In order to do that, they were going to have to have access

to a tax base. I think that's about as far as I'm prepared to go.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister, then, to transpose

himself into being a school trustee. I would like to ask the minister

what his advice would be to school boards and to school trustees who

have to work up a budget not knowing whether they're going to have

access to some taxation budget. How are they going to work up a budget?

They're going to be working up a budget at the time that this interim

legislation is in effect, which will preclude them from working their

budget out for the full fiscal year — July to July, if I'm not mistaken.

So they can't possibly work a budget out without a directive from

the ministry or from government telling them exactly what's going to

happen. If they have to do it under this interim legislation, they're

required to do it by the terms of the interim legislation. They have no

other choice. So along comes the end of 1986 and there's automatically

a default six month extension. So they can't work out a budget. It's an

impossibility.

So I would ask the minister to tell me what he would do if he were a

trustee working under that sort of onus. What would you do, Mr.

Minister?

[ Page 5666 ]

HON MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the current budget, or the

one which is being prepared now, is to cover the period from July 1,

1985, to June 30, 1986. Now the budget for July 1, 1986, to June 30,

1987, will be prepared and is to be submitted by March 1986. I don't

think we disagree on that. So I would suggest that when we have a new

School Act.... And it could be available — I don't know — sometime this

summer or sometime next fall. It may happen in early 1986.

The issue to which you refer is one which must be resolved. The

reason it must be resolved is that the amount of money which is

collected during the first week in July 1986 covers the calendar year

of 1986 — January to December. I think what trustees can expect is to

see something coming — there ought to be some indication, I would hope,

this year as to how we are going to resolve that — and certainly they

should have some guidance as to what is going to happen for the year

1986-87, when they must submit their budgets by March 15, 1986, for

1986-87.

MR. LEA: But, Mr. Chairman, obviously a school board doesn't

start putting its budget together a week before they have to submit it.

That starts in the fall. How can they start in the fall when they don't

know what's going to happen? The minister says: "But there may be some

legislation coming in down the road that may do something." I am asking

the minister what he would do if he were a trustee. What sort of

question would you ask yourself if you were a trustee? How can they

start putting their budget together when they don't know what

legislation they are going to be dealing with? It's an impossibility.

So just the mere fact that you are going to ask school boards to put

it together in a rush is, I think, irresponsible — to ask them to try

and put a budget together in that timeframe. I don't see what is so

difficult with this question. The question that I've asked is: if the

minister were a trustee, what action would he take? Once he gives me

the answer to that then I can go to the school trustees in my

constituency and say: "Well, here's the advice from the minister".

I am not getting that answer from the minister. All the minister is

saying is that there may be a White Paper, there may be legislation,

and we don't know what's going to be in it — or at least the school

trustees don't, and I assume that the minister doesn't know either,

from what he was saying because he is waiting to have a report before

he puts it together. Mr. Chairman, if the minister were a school

trustee having to work up a budget for the year 1986-87, what would he

do? How would he deal with that? Would he say to his staff: "Don't

bother doing anything until the early spring, or January or February of

1986"? I'm going to be meeting with my school board in Prince Rupert on

Sunday. What should I tell them you told me? Will I be able to tell

them something that makes sense?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, when all budgets are

prepared, it seems to me that every school board works on a basic set

of assumptions involving enrolment — whether it's going up, whether

it's going down, what their costs are going to be. We know that. Now

tell me, how have they worked out budgets over the past little while?

AN HON. MEMBER: About three times a year is how they did it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I would put it to you that that's

not unusual, and if all they've worked it out is three times per year

then I don't know if every board has done it enough times. When you are

talking about $1.9 billion annually, it seems to me that working out

budgets....

MR. ROSE: It's not to the school boards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as your grants are concerned, $1.5 billion total — $1.9 billion in public education.

The only commitment which I can give is that I intend to resolve that particular issue.

MR. LEA: In time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As soon as I can.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, how am I...? Mr. Chairman, I can't

turn around and stand here and tell you that a piece of legislation

which expires December 31, 1986.... We've got to address that issue. We

know we must address the issue; that's why we put a sunset provision in

it. What is going to take its place is a new piece of legislation. And

the sooner we get at it the better.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA: On Sunday when I meet with my school board, I'll

say: "Well, you're in the dark. As trustees responsible to the citizens

and the parents and the students of this constituency, the minister has

no answer for you. Start putting your budget together, not knowing what

legislation you're going to be working with — whether it's going to be

the old School Act, whether the interim act is going to be extended, or

whether some new act that may require something completely

different.... It's ridiculous. They can't work under those

circumstances, and I think that it would be irresponsible of them to

even try. So my message to them is: "No answer from the minister.

You're in the dark. Do the best you can, and hope for the best." That's

all I have to tell them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back a little bit to Selkirk College. The minister talked about equity around the province.

Number one, he kind of assumes that because we call these places

regional colleges they are 100 percent regional colleges, when in fact

you have students from Kitimat, from Dawson Creek, from other provinces

and, as my colleague says, even from the United States attending

Selkirk College, as indeed is the case with students from the Kootenays

going up to Northern Lights or coming to the Island to Malaspina for

special programs. If you want to.... I think there's an excellent

program in commercial diving at Malaspina — I've heard about that — or

there's something that's very useful to people going into marine

biology, at least, up at that college. Well, the point is, whether

that's the case or not, that they are not purely regional colleges.

Number two, in terms of the cost per capita, is that in the

Kootenays there are perhaps some sociological reasons why there are

higher participation rates at the community colleges than maybe in

other areas. It might have something to do with the fact that as a

province we have failed miserably in getting

[ Page 5667 ]

a reasonable participation rate from native

peoples. Also, of course, in the Selkirk College area there is not, to

my knowledge, one single Indian band. So if you put those two facts

together — the fact that we have failed miserably in terms of getting

much of a participation rate from native peoples, and that we don't

have any Indian bands and very few native people in that particular

area, although there is a small band over in Creston, but they're part

of the East Kootenay Regional College — and you add to that the very

high number of professional people to be found in government services

and at Cominco and at the pulp mill, and so on, you find a very high

participation rate of students.

You could look to all kinds of different things, but what it really

comes down to, the real equity question, is that here in British

Columbia we have a very low participation rate of students going on to

post-secondary education. If the people in the West Kootenays happen to

be reaching a national average, it's something that I'm afraid we're

just not going to apologize for. The people in the Kootenays took the

initiative to build post-secondary educational facilities back in 1952

in the form of Notre Dame University, and the people in the Kootenays

have always placed a very high priority on education. They have put

their money where their mouth was, and that so-called expensive college

was built by a referendum prior