1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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, JULY 10, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

627 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Lottery grant to Saltspring Golf Club. Mrs. Dailly –– 627

Proposed methanol plant. Mr. Howard –– 627

Televising of Summer and Winter Games. Mr. Barnes –– 628

Public access to Penticton leasehold. Mr. Macdonald –– 628

Hospital admission procedures for prison inmates. Ms. Brown –– 629

Closure of Highway 37. Mr. Passarell –– 629

Medical Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 629

Mr. Cocke –– 630

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 632

New Westminster Development Act, 1979 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 633

Mr. Cocke –– 633

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 634

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 634

Mr. Lauk –– 634

Mr. Cocke –– 639

Ms. Sanford –– 640

Mr. Hyndman –– 641

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 641

Division on second reading –– 643

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

On vote 89.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 644

Mr. Skelly –– 645

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 648

Presenting Reports

Special Committee of Selection, second report.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 651

Appendix –– 652

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have some very

special visitors in the gallery today, and that means everyone who is

in the gallery. But I would like you to recognize especially John and

Katherine Emmerson of Vancouver East who are with us today. We are

pleased to welcome them.

MR. KEMPF: It is my great

pleasure to introduce several guests in the gallery this afternoon.

Some are from my constituency of Omineca. With us this afternoon are

Mr. Larry Hope and his daughters Yvonne, Anne and Dale. Larry and

family hail from Burns Lake in my constituency. Also in the gallery is

Miss Jackie Fox, her mother Kitty, and her aunt Elsie Redford. They are

from England and Jackie lives in Fraser Lake in that great constituency

of Omineca. Last but certainly not least, for the first time in the

four years that I have sat in this House, with us in the gallery this

afternoon are my son Brian and his wife, my daughter-in-law, Janet.

They hail from Terrace in that great constituency of Skeena, and I

would like the House to make all these people very welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that member for Omineca is trying to steal my thunder. His introductions are getting a little long.

I'd

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming several members from the

Amalgamated Transit Union executive: Harry Singh, Jim Davie and Bob

Bedford.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are two professional foresters who during the years 1977

and 1979 worked many thousands of hours helping the government to

develop dual forest and range legislation. I would ask the House to

please welcome Bob Wood, the former chairman of FPAC, as we called it,

and Wes Cheston, a member of that committee.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is the mayor of Fernie, His

Worship Vern Uphill. Vern is the son of the legendary Tom Uphill, who

served the constituency of Kootenay in this Legislature for 41 years.

I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Uphill and the delegation from Fernie.

MR. BRUMMET:

Today I'd like the House to welcome two constituents from my riding, Ed

and Elsie Doyscher. Also with us today are Mayor Pat Walsh and Alderman

Beth Todrick of that fastest-growing city in British Columbia, Fort St.

John. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's often observed in this chamber that people from

Ottawa just don't pay attention to what this chamber is doing. I'm

happy today to advise the House that in the gallery are two genuine

citizens of Ottawa, Ontario. Would you welcome Robert Hyndman and

Bridie Hyndman?

Oral Questions

LOTTERY GRANT TO

SALTSPRING GOLF CLUB

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary. Were the members of the

Saltspring Island Recreation Commission consulted before a $75,000

lottery grant was given to the Saltspring Island Golf and Country Club

for an irrigation system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe they were as an entity; individuals with the recreation commission may have been consulted.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a supplementary. As the recreation commission has indicated

through the press that they were quite astounded when this money was

apportioned to this golf club without their knowledge, and as they

stated in the press that the money could much better have gone to a

swimming pool which would benefit the majority of the citizens and not

a few, I wonder if the minister would reconsider this grant.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The problem is that we have heard from

the recreation commission, or members thereof, only through the press

and not directly.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a

supplementary. Once again according to the press, I understand you will

be hearing from them. I was wondering, as the minister seems to be

ready to not change the appointment of this grant, if he could tell us

if he was responsible for the decision.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the question is really with respect to government policy,

and as a member of the government, I was responsible for the decision.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister then saying that he alone made the decision in this particular case?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.

PROPOSED METHANOL PLANT

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question — and I do so with a

certain degree of respect — to the greatest Economic Development

minister this province has ever had, certainly since I've been here.

would like to ask the minister if he could tell the House whether or

not he or his ministry has had any discussions with a company called

Ocelot Industries Ltd., a company proposing to build a methanol plant

somewhere in northern B.C. If he has had those discussions, could he

give the House any indication of the results of them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

The answer to the first part of the question from the member for Skeena

is yes. In answer to the second part, no conclusions have been reached,

as I told you during my estimates. Numerous proposals are coming in for

economic development projects everywhere

[ Page

628 ]

in the province. The one on the methanol plant in

Kitimat is only one of several I am expecting to receive in the near

future on similar plants. That's just one of a number of proposals we

will be looking at.

MR. HOWARD: I take it from the answer of the minister that the location is then in fact Kitimat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is no. I should have said Kitimat or Prince Rupert.

MR. HOWARD:

After that I'm tempted to withdraw my preliminary to the first

question. I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has had, or

will have in the near future, any discussions with the municipal

council of the municipality of Kitimat to discuss this question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

MR. HOWARD: When?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'll have to check my itinerary, but it seems to me it's on my

itinerary. We're very busy during the House session, but it seems to me

I told them they could come down, now that my estimates were over, and

that I would — the same as I do for everybody who comes to Victoria to

see me — make every effort possible to give them a good hearing.

TELEVISING OF SUMMER

AND WINTER GAMES

MR. BARNES: I would like to address

a question to the Provincial Secretary and thank him for his

cooperation in answering questions last week respecting the B.C. Summer

and Winter Games. I would like the minister to tell the House which

television company received a contract to cover the games in 1978.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's a matter of public record which does not need to be asked in this House.

MR. BARNES:

Is he suggesting that a question asked outside the House on public

record cannot be asked again in the House? Is the question out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, if it asks for material which is readily available to the public, is not really in order during question period.

MR. BARNES:

In that event I just want to confirm the information that I had,

because sometimes ministers say they have no knowledge of matters.

Could I ask the minister if he would confirm that the television

station is the BCTV network?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The

hon. member asked questions on this topic last week. I think that it is

not only a matter of public record, but a matter of Hansard record of previous question periods that would answer that question for him.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that there

was any mention of the television company. We did discuss the principle of television

company broadcasting without the inclusion of cable channels. However, I'm

asking the minister now if he could indicate the specific company. I have suggested

that if the public records are correct, it would be BCTV, but I would like him

to confirm that because I've a further question I'd like to ask him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's my duty to this House or to that member to confirm what is a matter of public record.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, maybe I should offer a little guidance here. That which

is public record is not a subject to question in this House. However, I

must add that not every member may be aware what is public record.

Therefore I think that common courtesies might be in order.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the extent or the duration of the contract

is public record. Could the minister indicate the length of the

contract?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would have

to take that as notice. I do not have it immediately available to me. I

do not have immediately available the term of any contract which

exists, but I will bring....

MR. NICOLSON: You should — it's a matter of record.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The question of the company is, I believe, a matter of public record

and was uttered by the member who was asking the question. I want to be

helpful to members on the opposite side, but I can't assist him with

the precise term of the contract which is in existence. I will obtain

that information and bring it back to the House.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, while he is taking this question as notice, could he also

indicate whether the contract is an exclusive contract, and whether

financial exchanges were made one way or the other between the

government through the BCTV? What I'm trying to determine is the extent

of the agreement, whatever it may have been. Could the minister also be

good enough to table the document so that the House can scrutinize it?

That, also, would become public record.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have the question. I will attempt to assist the member.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO

PENTICTON LEASEHOLD

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I want to

ask the minister why his ministry amended a lease from the government

in favour of the Penticton Fish and Game and Gun Club, covering 244

acres on the West Bench outside of Penticton, to eliminate access to

members of the public using the old wagon trail through that leasehold

into the mountains after that club had unlawfully put up "No

Trespassing" signs on a public road, put up an earth mound blocking

that road — and that's confirmed in letters from

[ Page 629 ]

the

ministry — and, as a matter of fact, shot one of the youngsters who was

using the road with a trail bike in an instance not too long ago. The

government then branded those youngsters as trespassers and changed the

lease denying public access through those lands. Can the minister tell

me why he would take the side of the gun club and shut down the road

after they had already blocked off public access? Why did you do it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'I take the question as notice.

HOSPITAL ADMISSION PROCEDURES

FOR PRISON INMATES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to thank the Attorney-General for showing up today despite the fact

that I alerted him to the fact that I would be asking him a question. I

think he indicated that he's got an answer ready for me. My question

has to do with the incident of a young girl in the Burnaby General

Hospital who was assaulted by a patient who.... The administrator said

the hospital was not alerted to the fact that this patient was a sex

offender, and the Attorney-General has assured me that he has looked

into it and he now has an answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to thank the lady member for drawing

it to my attention yesterday. The information that I have received is

this: this was a 17-year-old youth; he was serving an 18-month term for

sexual assault. On July 1 he was stricken with stomach pains severe

enough to impress the correction staff that it was an emergency

situation. The procedure under the circumstances apparently is to first

check with Oakalla to see if a doctor is available; if not, the patient

would be taken to Burnaby General Hospital, and this was done. The boy

was examined, his ailment was diagnosed as acute appendicitis and he

was admitted.

The hospital did not ask about the boy's

background; his escort was not aware of his background; and the staff

member at New Haven who issued the medical absence certificate

releasing him to Burnaby General didn't have his file readily

available. The incident there has been investigated.

Procedures,

hon. member, for sending inmates to hospital are to be changed so that

everyone concerned will be aware of the nature of the offence of any

inmate who is being sent to hospital. I understand charges have not

been laid; that's still under consideration too.

MS. BROWN:

I would like to thank the gentleman minister for his response. I'm

pleased that the procedure is going to be speeded up. This boy was

admitted on Sunday, and the offence didn't happen until Tuesday. Sunday

to Tuesday is a long time, isn't it?

MR. LEVI: A

supplementary to the Attorney-General. Is it not the practice to

categorize offenders through the classification system, so that the

staff would be alerted that the individual is a sex offender and that

he is, presumably, a security risk?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'I have to take that as notice. I don't wish to give you an imprecise answer; I could, but I don't choose to do that.

CLOSURE OF HIGHWAY 37

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question to address to the Minister of Labour. Last night

Teamsters Local No. 31 went on strike and closed down Highway 37. Will

the minister dispatch a mediator to Stewart to look into he situation

before more people are affected in that area who need the highway open?

MR. SPEAKER: The question would be in order if it were phrased: "What has the minister done...?"

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 15.

MEDICAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The purpose of this bill is to make a number of very minor technical

changes in the Medical Act, most of which have been asked for by the

College of Physicians and Surgeons, and which have been waiting for

about three years to come before this House. The reasons for most of

the changes are pretty self-evident or, at least, apparent from

explanatory notes in the bill.

There are a couple of

amendments, however, on quality control, and I should like to make a

few comments about that. The authority for investigating the skills of

a member is contained in the present

section 48(

a) of the Act. The

wording is imprecise and somewhat impractical. The council of the

college already has the power to investigate the skills and knowledge

of a member. But the amendment that permits the appointment of an

investigating committee for that purpose should prove to be a more

practical and flexible arrangement. The amendment to that

section

should also overcome any delaying tactics on the part of a member under

investigation by allowing the investigating committee to suspend the

member if that member fails to appear before the committee when ordered

to do so. Furthermore, if the findings of the investigating committee

indicate the protection of the public is being jeopardized, the

executive committee of the college is empowered to immediately suspend

the member pending a hearing of the full council. A similar provision

has been made in some other professional Acts in the past couple of

sessions of the House.

Section 21 of the bill is also aimed

at more adequate control. Under the present

section of the Act a

suspended member ceases to be a member of the college. This raises a

bit of an anomaly since that member is then not subject to any further

disciplinary action or competence investigation. The amendment would

continue his status as a member, but prohibit that person from holding

office or voting in college procedures. A new provision in

section 21

of the bill limits suspension to two years, after which the member's

name shall then be erased from the register. Thus an offending member

must either take action within that period to overcome the reasons for

his suspension or else cease to be a member.

[ Page 630 ]

Section

22 of the bill extends liability protection for the college and its

staff. Again, a similar provision has been made available to many

similar organizations in other bills. The liability protection, I must

stress, relates only to the administration of this Act and in no way

covers the practice of medicine. It is for that group of people only.

Section

23 of the bill tidies up and clarifies the lists of professions whose

members, when pursuing their respective professions, are deemed not to

be practising medicine and hence will not be in violation of the

medical Act. Dental technicians and psychologists are added to this

list since they have their own Act now and are changed slightly in

their description under that section.

Section 25 deals with

the penalties to be imposed against an unregistered person upon

conviction of practising medicine. At the present time minimum

penalties are not provided. The maximum penalty for the first offence

was $500, and second $1,000. A third offence brings a mandatory jail

sentence. This amendment brings the penalties into line with those

imposed under the

Summary Convictions Act, again bringing this bill in

line with many other bills passed by the Legislature in the past few

years. In effect, simply by that means, it increases the maximum fine

to $2,000, with the possibility of a jail sentence. In addition, the

amendment provides for a minimum fine of $300 for the first offence and

$500 for a second offence. Other than those measures contained in this

bill which are for the increased protection of the public, the rest of

the amendments are quite technical and quite minor in housekeeping

nature.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a quick review of

the bill would suggest it is a section-by-section amendment. I do not

find it a single-principle bill and it is therefore a little difficult

to debate in second reading. However, members may wish to attempt it.

MR. COCKE:

I am amazed at your wealth of parliamentary knowledge! When a minister

decides to introduce a bill that has a varying number of principles

within that bill, that's what we're faced with. We can only decide to

debate in principle those areas, as wide as they may be. So we really

are stuck with that situation. I would very much like to suggest we

deal with it

section by section. If we did, then we might miss an

opportunity to speak on the breadth of the basic Act that this is

amending, that we could not otherwise do.

I am not terribly

concerned about many aspects of this bill. I have had a roar of phone

calls, wires, cards — as a matter of fact people were phoning long

after bedtime last night, and very early this morning. Some people are

very concerned about this bill. I am sure the minister has a great deal

more protection from that kind of activity than I have. At the same

time, I am sure he has been confronted by many people who are concerned

about this Act. I would like to talk about some of those areas.

But

before getting to that situation I agree with the minister that this

Act mainly clarifies the wording, and updates the Medical Act. I would

wonder about a portion of this, however, where the minister amends the

present Act to the extent that we are no longer authorizing

Commonwealth reciprocity. I realize there is concern about some of the

minor Commonwealth countries in the teaching of medicine, et cetera.

But it strikes me that in repealing

section 9, we're also taking a look

askance at the United Kingdom trained doctors. I'd like the minister to

have another look at it, because if that's what the college wants, I'm

sure that's what the college can have. It doesn't really affect people

here, but it may affect some first-class doctors coming out to this

country.

I also think that there are some areas of concern

that sort of run counter to what the minister was talking about. He

says that the appointment of an investigating committee stops the

delaying tactics of the person being investigated. I would agree with

that. The only problem is that it also gives the investigating

committee an opportunity to deal unilaterally with a person who is

being charged. It keeps that person away, possibly unfairly, from the

practice of medicine. This is a two-way street. I recognize that the

person must be given 14 days' notice of a report prior to his hearing,

but it doesn't say how long he must be given in order to anticipate

getting to that point. I am concerned about that.

I am very

much in support of

section 22, of course, which protects those people

who work for the college — the registrar, deputy registrar, or whatever

— and who serve on committees investigating a peer or another

practitioner. The reason I support this protective provision is that it

means they do not suffer personal liability. It gives them a right to

write a report without the fear of being sued for having written that

report. I think this is an excellent step forward, and I certainly

support that aspect.

The big bone of contention, of course,

section 23. What we're really doing here is clarifying what is

already in

section 71 of the Act. I see very little change, but that is

a very disappointing aspect as far as I'm concerned.

Mr.

Speaker, let me give you an example of one group that I think by now

should have been considered — acupuncturists. They're not the only

group — I think there are others. In 1973 we set up a committee to

study the whole question of acupuncture. That committee decided that we

should set up some means of judging the practice or the art of

acupuncture. There were pain clinics set up, because the one thing that

was demonstrable in the practice of acupuncture was that it did kill

pain. But I have seen nothing occur since, other than the continuation

of the acupuncture pain clinics to some extent, but certainly no

broadening of them. We should be at a point where we could accurately

test the knowledge and ability of an acupuncturist.

One

might say that talking in terms of acupuncture is like talking in terms

of witchcraft or wizardry. I don't think that's the case. We've all

seen what happened in areas where acupuncture has been recognized.

There's been considerable support, and we certainly know that in China

the practice goes on. Incidentally, I've been in hospitals in China

where they show some tremendous examples of other than pain relief.

Symptoms have been mitigated and illnesses have been modified by the

use of acupuncture. I believe that we should pay serious attention to

these other areas of therapy.

What we've done here is again

provide the College of Physicians and Surgeons with their own Act. We

are amending it and including another couple of groups, but we have

provided them with the protection from other people in the health-care

field. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should

demonstrate the reason why these people are excluded from the

opportunity to diagnose or treat illnesses. The people that we permit

to practise are

[ Page 631 ]

those

people with their own Act plus the emergency services health group.

Otherwise they're mostly people with their own act, and the

psychologists are a good example. They've been included now; they were

not included before. But, Mr. Speaker, it's because we ourselves lack

interest in some of these other areas that they're being denied access.

were looking for some time at a way to provide an opportunity for

assessment of paramedical people — people who are not included in this

Act — which would lead us to believe that they were competent to

practise. An umbrella act in health care is one thing that we should be

looking at now.

I want to give you an idea what this Act

does. An acupuncturist who has been trained for years — and there are

some very in-depth courses on acupuncture — may not practise in this

province unless he or she practises down some back alley, or at least

in a cloak and dagger way of doing business. On the other hand, a

doctor may go and take four hours of lectures and become a practising

acupuncturist. What absolute nonsense! Doctors all over this province

now are practising the oriental art of acupuncture because they are

clothed in the protection of their own Medical Act. They can pierce the

skin...they can do all these adventuresome things. But, Mr. Speaker, a

person with long training in acupuncture may not practise in this

province and yet would be, in my view, much more proficient than a

doctor — no matter how smart, no matter how intelligent — who went and

listened to a four-hour lecture on acupuncture and began to practise

the procedure.

So I don't think that the doctors are being

fair, and I don't think that the Minister of Health is being fair when

he permits groups like this to be overlooked entirely by

an Act of the

Legislature. What we're doing here is giving the doctors the right to

say no to anybody other than those who are listed in this Act. That's a

fairly elite group. There are others who are practising, or would like

to be in a position to practise, who should be provided an opportunity

to prove themselves. I'm not saying open the door to charlatans, for

heaven's sake, any more than I would say open the doors to malpractice

in business, malpractice in selling of cars, real estate or whatever.

But I would suggest that there should be some access to a more flexible

and more open system of health care.

Mr. Speaker, I think

there's one other area that should be dealt with and that is this

question of unprofessional prescription practice. What you're saying

here is: "Don't push a drug on behalf of a drug house, don't permit

your name to be used for a commercial venture and don't advertise your

medical practice." Well, I think that this is another area in which I

would go a little bit further. I would suggest that the doctors are in

many cases not giving themselves enough time to study what's going on

and are not keeping up with contemporary developments, and that they

take the advice of drug pushers from these pharmaceutical companies. I

really would like to see a little bit better handle on the doctors' own

prescription practice. It's a proven fact in our society that there are

far too many people on tranquilizers. It's the easiest thing to do to

provide someone with a tranquilizer, and then at least, if he's not

feeling well, he doesn't feel so badly about it. But I think that

thalidomide should have taught us a lesson, and I think that the whole

question of administration in terms of prescriptions should be looked

at very carefully. I have been told, for example, that if I go to a

drugstore or go to a doctor, I am going to be told the side effects of

the prescription drugs that I'm to be given. Over the years I have on a

number of occasions received prescriptions — including some in recent

months — and I've yet to go to a drugstore and find out the side

effects. Nor, for that matter, can I find out the conflicting situation

within my body setup by two chemicals that don't mix. So I think there

should be some hardening up in this area.

I recognize what

this is about; it's about advertising. But I think we should go beyond

that. We should ask the College of Physicians, when they're doing their

peer group review, to look a lot more closely at this whole question of

prescribing chemicals or prescription drugs.

As far as the

minister was concerned, he suggested that not much has changed in

section 84, which is

section 25 under this bill. I agree. Mind you,

we're talking about minimum fines now instead of maximum fines. For the

first conviction, the old Act said "no more than $500." The new Act

says "no less than $300." For the second conviction it used to be "no

more than $1,000," and now it's "no less than $500." In other words, if

I'm convicted a second time, I could be fined $20,000 or whatever.

Summary convictions don't permit that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No,

summary convictions restrict it to $2,000.

MR. COCKE:

Okay. You're right — $3,000. It just escaped me for a second. The third

offence is imprisonment. That was the same under the old Act. But, Mr.

Speaker, we think in terms of someone who is providing a valid service,

or could provide a valid service, such as an acupuncturist, and who

faces a criminal conviction and jail for that practice. He can practise

in Ontario, California and Washington. All around us he can be

licensed. We can test people here.

True, compared to a

medical doctor all he has to do is take a four-day, four-hour lecture

and practise the art of acupuncture which, incidentally, could be very

dangerous because there are some acupuncture procedures that can result

in death. I know that's why the minister is nervous about it; that's

why I was nervous about it at one time. But believe me, there are

people who can be assessed in our society. In our province today there

are people who could be assessed as highly capable and a credit to our

health-care delivery system.

That's all I have to say on a

bill which, as the minister describes it, is — generally speaking —

housekeeping and bringing wording up to date. But I would like to have

seen a little bit more adventure, a little more moving away from the

orthodox, the traditional and getting out and seeing what we can do

about providing a wider latitude. This is a minister, Mr. Speaker, who

should know better than anyone that one should experiment from time to

time. He's taken what everybody else failed with, the heroin treatment

program, and he says that he's going to make it a winner. Well, if he's

that adventuresome, I think that he could be a little bit more

adventuresome on Bill 15.

Yes, we'll support Bill 15. Yes, I

must support Bill 15. But I do wish that the minister could have just

been a little bit more open-minded and accepted some other

recommendations. I wish that the college and the medical profession

would open up their particular eyes with respect to others

[ Page 632 ]

who could very well complement the health care system in this province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, maybe the best of us can only handle one adventure at a

time. I agree with the member's comments — and I won't comment on all

of the things he said — about the suspension of a medical practitioner

perhaps being unfair. That's true; all of these things have the

potential of being unfair. You have to weigh that against the

protection of the public and which is most important. I think in this

instance the protection of the public outweighs the possibility of some

unfair practice by the application of this

section of the bill.

the matter of prescriptions, I agree that this bill could have gone

further, and there are lots of ways in which we could have moved. But

these were a few housekeeping amendments that mainly were asked of us,

and I felt rather than wait for something greater, we put these

amendments in and clean the Act up. They don't deal with some of the

things that the member for New Westminster commented upon. In the

matter of prescription drugs, certainly we're concerned. We've been in

active consultation with our Pharmacare people, the pharmacists

themselves and the medical profession. There is at the present time

negotiation going on between those two professions. They're talking

about ways in which we can bring some greater responsibility and

accountability to the prescribing of those kinds of drugs which are of

concern to all of us in society. I have no doubt that we'I be coming

back before this House before very long to ask for amendments to either

this bill or another bill to deal with some of those serious problems.

I accept that from the member.

We could have become more

adventurous in terms of

section 23, for which I got my share of

protests in my office and on the phone as well, Mr. Member for New

Westminster. I can understand the concern that people may have, but I

do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill makes no changes to what

was here in the past.

MR. MACDONALD: Why do it, then?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, this

section makes no changes except to pick up two groups of

people who need to be covered because of changes in their own

professions. It's not fair to keep them shut out, so a minor amendment

to the bill will look after that. It does not expand either the

College's right to police its own profession or others, so in that

regard there is no concern because that law is already before the

people of British Columbia, and it is the law.

Now we were

not ready to consider either a relaxation of that policing power the

College of Physicians and Surgeons has, or an expansion of the groups

who are associated with health provision in one way or another at this

time.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the college itself is

feeling increasingly uncomfortable about its role of dealing with

others than their own profession. I think the time is ripe for us to

enter into serious discussions with the college that would allow some

other avenue for the protection of the public, to people who are not

physicians and surgeons, and allow the College of Physicians and

Surgeons to police their own practice.

I feel, Mr. Speaker,

that the college agrees, in broad terms, with that concept today. It

wasn't true a year ago or two years ago or ten years ago, but I believe

that it is true today, and that the college is ready to look at a

different role in that regard.

With respect to

acupuncturists themselves, I know the member for New Westminster is

sincere, because he is correct. While he was Minister of Health the two

pain clinics and the assessment of acupuncture and its role in the

delivery of health services got some impetus. We've continued that.

Acupuncture now may be practised by a medical doctor.

think it is overly simplistic, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that because a

doctor takes a short course in acupuncture, the doctor is not prepared

as well as he should be to practise the so-called profession of

acupuncture. What we forget in that kind of simplistic approach is that

the doctor has spent years and years and years in medical college

learning how to diagnose disease, which is probably the most important

aspect in the delivery of that kind of health care. It's the diagnosis

that's important.

Mr. Speaker, what I am being asked to

consider today is turning over that diagnostic procedure to a group

that has been trained only in acupuncture. I'm not so sure that's a

safe or responsible way for us to go in this province at this time.

Yes, acupuncture has demonstrated very clearly that it is effective in

the treatment of some kinds of pain for varying lengths of time. There

is no doubt any more about that, no doubt whatsoever. That's why the

two pain clinics that we have operating under the auspices of the

government are so successful, and there are waiting lists for them.

That's why medical doctors who have taken additional training in the

practice of acupuncture are also busy providing that kind of service.

But,

Mr. Speaker, if we turn over the essential element of medical

treatment, diagnosis, to a group of people who may not be trained to

give that diagnosis, then I think we may lay upon the public a very

dangerous procedure. I am not prepared to do that at this time, nor is

the government, but we are prepared to have a further look into what we

should be doing in terms of this.

You know, there are times,

Mr. Speaker, when you come almost to the point where you are ready to

recommend that some innovation in providing this kind of service is

accepted by the government. I would just like to relate one quick story

to you about a meeting I had in my office with an acupuncturist about

the same thing we are talking about today. That acupuncturist said to

me that I should immediately recommend to government that freedom of

choice be available to the citizens of British Columbia in terms of the

way in which they could have access to that kind of diagnosis and

treatment.

I asked one question, Mr. Speaker, and that

question was this: "If someone came to you, with your training as a

acupuncturist only, with no medical training of any kind in diagnostic

procedures or in the delivery of traditional medicine, and said, 'I'm

suffering from cancer and I'm worried about it,' what would you do with

that patient?" The answer, unequivocally, was: "I would treat that

patient." Mr. Speaker, that scared the hell out of me; it really did.

So I want to be very careful about this.

I think there will

come a time when there should be some expansion. I would like to do it,

however, in consultation with the college in terms of their whole role

in this nature. And, as I said at the opening of my closing remarks, I

believe the college is ready to have a changing

[ Page

633 ]

role in this regard, and I hope that we can move towards that very quickly.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

15, Medical Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

NEW WESTMINSTER

DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 21.

I think it's a very innovative bill, a prototype for all redevelopment

programs in cities wherever redevelopment is required.

The

New Westminster Redevelopment Act can form the basis of revitalizing

many centres, but in particular, of course, it is applicable in this

particular case to the first capital city, the Royal City, a city which

offers great potential but which, unfortunately, has been on the

decline for some time and which we believe will be certainly receiving

a great deal of attention with the special benefits provided through

this bill.

The format for expediting vital development will

provide, as I said earlier, a model in other areas. I know it will be

watched from many quarters with great expectations.

As the

New Westminster core is revitalized and becomes self-supporting with

the help of government guidance and funding, the surrounding areas will

begin to feel substantial spinoffs and market potential for office,

retail and residential uses. However, redevelopment depends on the

steady availability of land at the right time in the right places and

at reasonable prices. Consequently the Act provides the means whereby

the city can enter into an agreement with The First Capital City

Development Company Limited for land assembly.

Finally, the

Act provides for the amendment of the official community plan. The

community development plan will reverse the negative trends which have

plagued New Westminster for 20-odd years. According to the British

Columbia Development Corporation, New Westminster will take on an image

of a city where some of the largest, most innovative developments in

Canada are taking place, and will lose its time-worn image as a place

of slow growth.

I am advised that aggressive international

promotion has already catalysed firm commitments on the part of the

development industry. A great deal of interest is being expressed, and

we certainly feel that through this mechanism it can become a reality

for the city of New Westminster.

I move second reading of Bill 21.

MR. COCKE: It seems to be my lucky day, Mr. Speaker — two in a row.

I just would like to say that they brought it on themselves. I'm glad that

that minister was the one who had to present this bill, because I suspect that

if the decision hadn't made along about January 1976, when they decided

not to put ICBC in downtown New Westminster, with all of the attendant development

that would have occurred at that time, you wouldn't be in the problem or

the situation that we're in now.

But,

Mr. Speaker, it's the old adage. Once you can get the city

establishment, the chamber of commerce and others drinking their own

bathwater that everything is going to be okay on the morrow, then you

get a situation in which delay after delay after delay occurs.

Now

we come up with Bill 21, which will suddenly bring about the

revitalization of our downtown core. It's a bill that is going to be

used as a prototype for other areas. Well, you know, it might not be

bad. It does provide one with a bit of concern because future councils

are locked in with decisions that are made now. There's very, very

little chance, unless a government decides at this level to make

changes, that a new council will have that opportunity.

gives a lot of shortcuts with respect to the rights to develop. Usually

one has to go through a lot of red tape, and if this can cut some of

that red tape, I guess it's good. But at the same time, oftentimes one

has to be very careful, particularly when you're dealing with outside

developers, in ascertaining just what problems they may be creating in

their development.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The

downtown core of New Westminster is a disaster. It's a disaster as the

result of years and years of total neglect by all levels — and not only

by government. The business community itself didn't realize that people

hate walking up and down a hill with a slope that doesn't particularly

lend itself to shopping, so that redevelopment has never been

considered other than as a marketplace. I hope that when we look at

redevelopment we are going to look at commercial redevelopment. I would

like to see boutiques and some shopping, but basically that's an area

that lends itself to commercial development.

That's why ICBC

would have been such a boon. Instead of that, we are paying an enormous

rent for the head office of ICBC at the Royal Centre, a decision made

by that heady Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who forgot about

his responsibility to save money. Instead, he would not permit the

moving of ICBC's head office to where it rightfully belongs, in a nice

area that was secured for it. Around ICBC a tremendous commercial

development would have built up, and the downtown core would have been

revitalized. Now we're doing it three or four years later by guess and

by gosh.

What's the key to this one? The key to this

development is, again, a tribute to that great Minister of Education.

What are we going to have down there? Douglas College, of all things.

That's sort of his trade-off. I wonder what that's going to do for the

business of our downtown area. I'm concerned about it. I understand

they've allocated 600 parking spots on that hill, underground and above

ground, and that's all for Douglas College. If there are more, that's

something very, very recent. Presently Douglas College is using about

2,000 to 2,500 parking spots where its campus is now located. Does this

mean that the overflow is going all over the downtown area of New

Westminster?

Whether we like it or not, we have lousy

transit and, with the Socreds, it's becoming increasingly bad in the

downtown area of New Westminster. We have no transit terminal, which we

were going to have as part of the old

[ Page 634 ]

ICBC

presentation. No, we've got a level of transit which does not encourage

people to use transit; it encourages them to use their cars. I worry

about what's going to happen to our downtown area. If the minister can

assure me that a good deal of thought is being given to this and to the

other areas of concern being expressed from time to time, then, to some

extent, I'm gratified and relieved. I do worry about that whole area,

and I do worry that people are not really looking at the consequences

of some of the actions taken. To date it's been a big PR job.

You

can say: "Well, the courthouse is going in." The courthouse was going

in. As a matter of fact, it was going to be slightly larger than the

one we have going now. That's all we have to show for it, other than

promises. Promises that come about four years later strike me as being

something one should always be somewhat wary of. I'm somewhat wary of

this whole proposition.

Basically I don't oppose the bill. I

think it's probably a good prototype. As a matter of fact, we had

legislation similar to this in the NDP days. That was wiped out, and

now we're going back piece by piece, I don't really feel I can oppose

this legislation. All I'm saying is that it's too bad it's taken us so

long to get to this point.

Why is it that we're looking at

this bill now when I understood we'd be looking at it a year ago? Did

some problems develop? Douglas College has been put back and put back

and put back so many times.... It is hoped they will get off the ground

in September. They've been ready to break ground for some considerable

time. Let's hope that the other development down there occurs. It is

certainly a better vehicle than what we have at the present time.

City

council supports the bill and most of the people involved in the

downtown core support the bill. I wish them good luck with it. I want

this on the record, Mr. Speaker: all through the time of the

negotiations I have kept my counsel, despite the fact that I have

wondered about all the PR and the lack of action. I am pleased to see

that at long last something is happening. Let's hope something tangible

happens pursuant to this bill being proclaimed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the member for New

Westminster is not receiving this particular bill with great

enthusiasm. Certainly I concur with the member when he suggests that

public facilities can often provide a great aid to assuring that the

development, in fact, takes place. As he mentioned himself, we are

certainly providing for this through the establishment of a major

educational facility in the downtown core. Also, the courthouse was not

approved until this government approved the courthouse. So to suggest

that perhaps they had something bigger or better in mind, I think, is

not too solid in that there were no plans prior to our approval of them.

The

car parking was mentioned and, of course, I think it should be

recognized that the existing Douglas College facility is on the

outskirts of the New Westminster area near the hospital on Eighth

Avenue. We're looking here at something right in the downtown core

which we hope will see a lot of residential development immediately in

the area as well, so there may not be need for cars such as there is on

the outside.

We have a meeting coming up in several weeks to discuss high-density transit, and that certainly will include New Westminster.

Finally,

we could not have brought it forth last year. This was not completed by

the New Westminster city council until December 1978, and this is a New

Westminster plan. This plan was developed by the city of New

Westminster for New Westminster. It was finally nearly ready in

December 1978 and we've expedited the process. We now have it before

the House.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

21, New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979, read a second time and

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker,

it's a pleasure to move second reading of Bill 18. It's one of these

bills without principle. Therefore it's difficult for me to address a

broad principle in the bill, except to say that we've got a new concept

here which is, for legislative economy, not to open up every

educational statute every year but to attempt to consolidate those

essential housekeeping measures into one Statutes Amendment Act, and

then at periodic intervals to open up the main bills — there are, I

think, five of them — under the Ministry of Education for major

rewriting. So all that we've done here is to combine those housekeeping

measures that we considered to be of very high priority but of minor

legislative import into this one small bill. If any of the members

opposite have questions about particular sections, I can deal with

those in summarizing the debate, and we'll have an opportunity to

discuss them individually in committee.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, I regret very much that the minister, after stating that it's

policy not to open up the education statutes every year, presents first

of all this omnibus bill in its present form, and then speaks only for

a few seconds without outlining, as should be his opportunity, some of

the policy behind the proposed amendments, and further explaining to

the province of British Columbia why he has not made further amendments

as requested by various organizations over the years to the Public

Schools Act.

I intend to deal with the principle of this

bill. The minister indicates that there is no principle. One of the

unfortunate ways in which governments avoid debate on the very

important principles that arise from their ministries from time to time

is to bring in an omnibus bill. This minister has been particularly

culpable in doing just precisely that. He was the minister of omnibus

bills in this chamber for the last parliament, and it seems he's

starting again in this one.

The minister is aware that

various groups have approached him for various amendments from time to

time. The minister, I'm instructed, has stated to these persons: "Well,

we're not going to open the bill this year, but your proposals will be

taken into consideration when we do."

[ Page

635 ]

Not only has he not done so on this occasion in a substantive way,

but he has failed to deal with the bills separately as they should be

dealt with, particularly the Public Schools Act, which requires major

revision.

For many, many reasons — and we have canvassed the

proposed amendments carefully, Mr. Speaker — the opposition will oppose

this bill in second reading. We feel that those proposals made by this

bill, where they are needed, are inadequate and will do more harm than

good, and where they are not needed to the various statutes,

particularly the Public Schools Act and the Independent Schools Support

Act, will do great mischief. It is a sloppily drafted bill, taken on

its face. It solves nothing and it creates grave problems. To run it by

the House as a housekeeping measure in the form of an omnibus bill is

not a forthright and honest way to proceed.

Particularly,

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to make substantial changes as

proposed by the teachers of this province with respect to those

provisions which affect teachers and that do not, in any way, directly

affect the Ministry of Education's direction of public education in the

province. Some time ago, a very serious brief was presented to the

minister by teachers dealing with

section 129 of the Public Schools

Act. Although this bill tinkers with some of the proposals made in that

brief, it does not in any way take seriously the suggestions made by

the teachers' federation. We must assume in this chamber, Mr. Speaker,

that the federation speaks for most, if not all, teachers with respect

to changes in the Public Schools Act.

The opposition

believes that there must be a balance between the right of boards of

school trustees to secure best deployment of staff and the right of

teachers to fair personnel practice and effective due process for any

such decisions by school boards. It is our view that such a balance no

longer exists, and the proposed bill does nothing to solve that. The

Public Schools Act has been used — by virtue of

section 129, at least —

in avoidance of more appropriate sections of the Act, to achieve

apparently punitive, horizontal or vertical transfers of teaching

personnel. It is inconsistent with the intent of the Public Schools Act

and fair personnel practice, and avoids due process.

Specifically,

there is no requirement that a board state the reasons for the transfer

of a teacher. Secondly, there's a minimum of seven days' notice of a

transfer, which is wholly inadequate. The limit of seven days in which

to seek an interview with the board is also a hardship. The board may

grant an interview at such short notice, or at times when it is not

possible for the teacher to prepare or secure the attendance of an

adviser or counsel. The interview provision leaves the impression of an

appeal process, but there is none. The initial decision of the board to

issue a transfer notice is on the basis of advice. There are no reasons

and there is little likelihood that a board would later act contrary to

that advice or reverse itself. There are many such examples of this

injustice, but it is consistent with the philosophy and policy of this

particular minister to sidestep already-existing rights that have

existed for years for teachers, and treat them as second-class citizens.

The Public Schools Act was designed to protect their interests and their employment

and their tenure, not particularly because of their individual rights — although

that's important — but to protect the public education system from political

interference, both at the provincial and the local level. When appeal procedures

exist in the Public Schools Act to protect those rights and provide due process,

to see the ministry allow both themselves and school boards to sidestep those

rights by the transfer procedures in

section 129 is reprehensible and a denial

of natural justice.

These

points were brought to the attention of the minister some time ago, yet

no protection has been incorporated in this new bill for such teachers.

The proposals by the Teachers' Federation were reasonable, and they

were fair. They did not involve extra cost, although negligible

bureaucratic costs always occur to the education budget. I conclude the

minister has once again shown arrogance — and a disregard for

individual rights.

I suppose he feels that the people of

this province will side with him against teachers no matter what he

does. But let me remind you. Mr. Speaker, and the minister that the

people of this province believe in what is fair. They believe people

should be provided those tenets of natural justice they wish for

themselves. Evidently the minister does not. He has turned a blind eye

to the suggestions made by the Teachers' Federation with respect to

transfer provisions.

Let me recall for the minister some of

the suggestions that were made. The current provisions of the Public

Schools Act place the tenure of all teachers in unreasonable jeopardy

with little, if any, hope of a fair hearing or redress. Transfer on

seven days' notice, with no right of effective appeal, can cost a

teacher additional travel costs, loss of present position, demotion,

loss of salary and other benefits, reduction in pension, and can result

in a totally unfair or inappropriate assignment.

The Public

Schools Act may be used to avoid disciplinary provisions elsewhere in

the Act, thereby preventing use of appeal provisions. That's exactly

what has happened.

Essentially, the Public Schools Act

places all teachers assigned to positions as principals. vice —

principals, head teachers, and other supervisory personnel, in the

unreasonable jeopardy of losing their positions on seven days' notice,

without due process. That is hardly the kind of tenure to encourage

strong and effective leadership in our high schools and elementary

schools by supervisory staff, and it hardly provides that degree of

protection necessary so that teachers and supervisory personnel will

not be intimidated by the political exigencies of local school boards

or the Ministry of Education.

It encourages the less

straightforward ministers of the future and school boards. It

encourages patronage and political interference in our high schools and

public schools. It is a dictatorial and arbitrary use of power. The

minister, again showing back-of-the-hand treatment to teachers in this

particular case, shows, by that arrogance, contempt for the public

education system in B.C.

It is consistent, I regret to say,

with his entire history as Minister of Education. The minister seems

bent on doing anything he can to undermine the morale and the integrity

of the public education system. He has travelled the length and breadth

of the province, announcing to taxpayers that the public education

system is not worthy of their support, that teachers are not diligent,

are greedy and selfish. He has gone throughout the length and breadth

of the province....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. member, I have looked at several of the sections of this Act, and

I find it difficult to fit the discussion you're currently conducting

under second reading. It would seem to me that your line of

[ Page 636 ]

debate might be better placed in the estimates of the minister rather than in second reading of this bill.

MR. LAUK:

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you've obviously considered the bill at

length, as I have over several hours, and that you can make that

judgment. However, I disagree with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, do you challenge the Chair?

MR. LAUK: I'm asking you a question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you have your rights; I have mine.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The Speaker is not entitled to intimidate a member while he's giving a speech on the principle of the bill.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, you were asked to relate to the bill, and you chose to

challenge the Chair. I would like to know on what grounds you wish to

challenge the Chair, if indeed you do wish to challenge the Chair. If

you do not wish to challenge the Chair, then I would suggest that you

proceed with debate which is in order under this bill.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker pointed out to me that he could not see how my line of

debate was relevant to the principle of this bill. I'm without further

explanation. The bill opens up the Public Schools Act for amendment;

precisely it deals with tenure in terms of employment and contracts and

finances — and that's precisely what I'm talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER . Hon. member, if you were to peruse the Blues when they

come out, you would find that your line of discussion wasn't quite dealing

with that; it was dealing with the activities of the minister as they pertain

to school teachers, and I find no reference to that in this bill. We are in

second reading, and you, hon. member, are very well aware of the rules. Under

second reading the debate can be very wide-ranging; however, your line of debate

would be much better conducted under the minister's estimates. If you wish

to continue with debate in second reading — clause by clause or in general discussion

of this bill — that's quite in order.

MR. LAUK:

Perhaps I'm not able to express myself with that degree of clarity that

would lead to Mr. Speaker's understanding of what I'm saying, and I

apologize for that. But earlier in my speech I related the minister's

role in undermining the public education system of this province to the

provisions of this bill related to the Public Schools Act which

undermine the role and the tenure of the teacher and the supervisory

personnel of various schools in the province. I'm arguing in this

chamber in second reading that the philosophy behind such a move has

been consistent throughout the term of office — both in the last

parliament and in this — of the current Minister of Education. If we

can't discuss the policy or underlying philosophy with respect to the

proposed amendments in second reading, then we can discuss nothing in

second reading.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the minister has been quite clear: to centralize authority

in Victoria on the one hand, and to place the cost burden of education at the

local taxpayer level. He has consistently done that for two parliaments — or

one, and starting this one. These amendments enhance that philosophy once again.

The minister, as I have said, has clearly indicated to the various organizations

interested in public education that by design the legislative process, either

in this chamber or in cabinet, centralizes bureaucratic and complete and dictatorial

control of public education in his office. Yet he avoids the financial consequence

for the local taxpayers of his sometimes very ill-advised decisions. This bill

is full of amendments, which he is trying to be sneak through this House, that

will support that philosophy.

Mr.

Speaker, what specifically has he done up to this point? He has allowed

local school boards to use the transfer provisions of

section 129 of

the Public Schools Act to completely circumvent the appeal procedures

of the Public Schools Act. But most school boards operate with a sense

of natural justice and it's not a problem. Some school boards do not so

operate and will, for their own political reasons and reasons of

philosophy and policy in education, transfer teachers without appeal

and without due process as a punitive measure. That, in fact,

undermines the education system, in that teachers must look over their

shoulders now at what the ministry wants them to do and what the school

board wants them to do in terms of teaching in the classroom and in

terms of being a principal or vice principal. They are subject to that

control without a fair hearing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

Public Schools Act, as I say, may be used to force teachers currently

assigned to positions to accept limited term contracts which

automatically terminate.

It is interesting to note also that

as recently as 1975, teachers appointed to positions as principals,

vice principals, head teachers and other supervisory personnel enjoyed

the same protection of tenure with respect to that appointment as all

other teachers with respect to their appointments. The introduction of

the

section at that time retroactively destroyed that tenure, and now

the provisions and applications of

section 129 effectively eliminate

any tenure for such positions. One must look at those amendments to

consider intelligently the amendments that are now proposed — the

so-called housekeeping or tidying-up bill — in order to understand the

very sinister philosophy of this minister to undermine the morale and

the integrity of the public education system.

Before leaving

that point, I heard someone say what due process means and how it is

now being encroached upon by the provisions of this bill. Every

teacher, principal, vice-principal, headmaster, whoever, has the right

to be informed in writing of allegations and grounds for any

[ Page 637 ]

transfer,

dismissal or demotion or whatever. Everyone has the right to full

access to the evidence in each and every case. Everyone has the right

to defend himself and be defended by a representative of his choice.

Adequate time must be given to the teacher for the preparation of his

defence. He has the right to be informed in writing of the decisions

reached and the reasons for them. There is the right to appeal to

clearly designated competent authorities who are separate and apart

from those who have brought the allegation. Those are basic human

rights — basic natural rights and we protect them very dearly and

carefully for the public service in Victoria. What's wrong with

protecting those rights for teachers in the public education system?

The tinkering of this bill does nothing to solve that serious problem

because it is not consistent with the minister's philosophy that

teachers have no rights.

With respect to the proposed

amendments to the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing

Authority Act, what we see here is a very serious problem arising. When

we debated the Independent Schools Support Act there was some

discussion about capital financing of independent schools. This is a

principle that has never been debated in this House and it is a

principle that the opposition, up until this point, thought would never

be before this House. No government has proposed to provide public

money for capital cost financing of private schools. That has never

been publicly proposed by this government or this minister. Yet these

amendments will by law allow the possibility of this government, in the

secrecy of the cabinet room, to provide public money for the

capital-cost projects of private schools. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that

principle has never been debated, and that policy has never been put

forward by the government. If it is not their policy, then it should

clearly say so in the bill, and appropriate amendments should be made

to protect the public purse from further encroachments by this

government for capital-cost expenditures on private schools.

I'I

deal with it in committee in detail and show you how legally the

cabinet can make that decision without bringing it before the House.

They can designate independent schools as institutions entitled to have

their capital-cost indebtedness guaranteed by this government and by

the public purse. That is what the amendment calls for. The opposition

is totally opposed to that principle, and it is another basic and very

fundamental reason why we will oppose this bill on principle in second

reading. Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the minister's policy should

be clearly announced before legislation is brought to the House. It

should not be couched with a cloak of the omnibus bill, sneaked into

the House and passed as an omnibus bill without discussing that

important principle. The people of this province are not generally

opposed to dealing fairly with families that send their children to

independent schools. That's not a basic issue in the province. But what

is a fundamental issue is that aid to independent schools should not

undermine the public education system. It should not deplete the public

purse at the expense of the public education system and those children

who go to the public schools. But slowly and surely — in an almost

Machiavellian way — these chess moves by a very intelligent minister

are being brought before the House session after session enabling the

cabinet to operate without debate in this chamber on principles that

could go unforeseen.

To expand on that — and I know the

phrase causes you great concern — the public financing authority Act

for educational institutions was intended by this chamber to deal only

with post-secondary education. That Act, as it stands, could be used

only to provide guaranteeing of indebtedness to public secondary

educational institutions. The Public Schools Act dealt with the

financing of secondary and elementary public schools, together with its

complementary statutes.

By the new arrival of aid to

independent schools, and this new established relationship of the

public purse with independent schools, the proposed amendment enables

the government to designate private schools under that financial

authority. When they do, the cabinet, without further debate by the

Legislature, without any reference to the public whatsoever, can commit

the public treasury to guarantee capital cost financing for private

schools throughout the province.

It is not sufficient for

the minister, in dealing with a statute, to say: "We don't intend

that." He's not going to be here forever, or he may change his mind.

But the law has to be clear, and it is not. It can only be assumed that

a person as knowledgeable about legislation as the minister fully

intends to have that power given up and delegated by this House to the

cabinet. We are opposed to that.

Another point to support

our opposition to this bill is that for some time now local school

boards appointed and hired superintendents. The cost, depending upon

what era we are talking about, was borne by both the ministry and the

local school district. Now we see the cost of the payment for

superintendents shifting away from the provincial ministry to the local

taxpayer.

The amendments now proposed restrict the right

school boards historically have had to appoint their own

superintendents in many cases to a list provided to them from the

Ministry of Education. This is totally consistent with this minister's

philosophy. His philosophy in the last parliament, from 1975 until

today, has been consistent. I've got to give him full marks for that.

He has no interest in giving any power to local school boards and

districts. He wishes to centralize that power of the public education

system entirely at his desk. But he wishes to pay for nothing.

Costs

of the superintendents are now entirely on the homeowner, but their

appointment rests entirely with the minister. This cosmetic nonsense

about providing an approved list to local school boards, from which

they may appoint or hire a superintendent, is nothing more or less than

cosmetic nonsense, and it no longer succeeds in disguising the

minister's true intent of undermining school board integrity and

decentralization of authority within the educational system.

This

minister is moving against the tide, Mr. Speaker, and to do so he

obviously finds a certain amount of subterfuge necessary. The tide is

decentralization of the educational system. The opinion of educators

throughout Canada and North America is that where major mistakes have

been made in education it has been because of a monolithic central

control over education that does not reflect the needs of the community

and the aspirations of the community in the education of our young

people. It is arbitrary; it is dictatorial; but, as I say, it is

consistent with this minister's philosophy.

The third point is very troublesome indeed, That is the provision whereby the Independent Schools Support Act

[ Page 638 ]

will

be amended to allow an authority under that Act to transfer its

accreditation to another authority. To explain that further, it was

debated in this Legislature under the Independent Schools Act that no

private school could apply for public funding unless it had operated as

a private school for at least five years. That was one of the

provisions allowing them to receive public funding.

Now we

find an amendment that will allow an authority which has had

accreditation for five years to sell that to some other authority.

Wherever that situation has arisen in our economic system in British

Columbia, it has led to the most outrageous economic speculation. I ask

Mr. Speaker to consider this trading of accreditation in public

schools, under the Independent Schools Support Act, as one would see

the trading of taxi licences in the city of Vancouver. Do you know that

it costs about $65,000 to buy a taxicab in the city of Vancouver?

You're not paying for the car. I don't know of any car valued at

$65,000, particularly one that would be used in the streets of the city

of Vancouver. You're paying for the licence to operate a taxicab within

the city of Vancouver. The five-year accreditation provision is a very

important provision. If we allow the trading of that accreditation as a

licence to be bought and sold by whatever authority sets itself up to

do so, an economic value will be placed on that accreditation or

licence and will be trading in an economic way the right to receive

public funds for aid to independent schools. If the minister didn't

intend that — he's had almost a year to consider these amendments —

what on earth is he doing in his office? In the minister's office, what

is the civil service doing? Don't they read these amendments? Don't

they have legal advice? Don't they consider all the possibilities?

The

minister's cavalier attitude towards the drafting of these amendments

is repugnant to the opposition, particularly in the case I mentioned,

which is a classic example of sloppy draftsmanship which has

characterized his ministry since 1975. That amendment can't possibly go

through. I'm well aware of the anomalous situation the minister is

trying to correct, but he's done so in an ill-considered way and in a

sloppy fashion. Again, because of that, we're opposed to this bill.

The

other amendment that causes us great concern in substance — but we can

see it as reasonable — opens up the whole question of financial aid to

independent schools. The proposed amendment allows the minister, under

that Act, to designate more up-to-date figures for calculating the

grant that will go to a particular independent school. Prior to the

passage of this bill.... The figures on which the ministry calculates

its grant to independent schools are described as "those published" or

"most recently published" by the ministry. Sometimes they are two years

out of date. It is appropriate, then, to have those figures current, so

that the grant to independent schools will reflect the current

operating cost per pupil in the school district in question. If one

accepts the Independent Schools Support Act, that is not reprehensible

to us; that is fair. But it is an appropriate time to canvas what has

happened.

We have had a full year to see the Independent

Schools Support Act in operation. What has it done? Through the

Independent Schools Support Act, the ministry has a provision whereby

each pupil in an independent school will receive an amount equal to the

operating cost per pupil in the public education system in the school

district in which that independent school is situated. In other words,

whatever the public education system provides in costs to a pupil, 25

percent of that will go to each pupil in the independent school system

for those independent schools that qualify under the Act. What has that

led to? Is it fair? Should we support this amendment?

suggest to you that it is not fair, because the figures are calculated

on the total cost per pupil in the public education system, including

those costs provided by the taxpayer at the homeowner level. The

provincial purse, which has a much broader base of taxation, provides a

greater amount per pupil to the independent school student. In School

District 39 in the city of Vancouver I think there are approximately

60,000 students in the public education system. They received

$7,123,543 from the provincial government in the last operating year.

In other words, that is the provincial contribution towards 60,000

students in the school district of Vancouver. Private school pupils

number about 5,100. They receive $2,724,617. In other words,

nine-tenths of the students in the city of Vancouver receive two-thirds

of the provincial contribution towards education costs, and less than

one-tenth of the students in that jurisdiction receive one-third of the

total provincial contribution.

Now I ask you to consider

that in the light of what everybody in this province should consider to

be fair. We all pay taxes; we all have the same burdens. Whether I have

children in school, whether I have somebody in the hospital, or whether

I have had anybody use an ambulance, I pay my share of taxes. I do not

expect because I do not have children in school to pay less than my

neighbour who may have children in school, or to receive some special

privilege that another citizen does not receive. The question of

privilege is so much a part of the philosophy of this minister. The

privilege of one-tenth of the students of the city of Vancouver to

receive one-third of the provincial education budget for that school

district is not fair. People know it's not fair. They know it's

inequitable and it's discriminatory against those of us who do not have

children in the independent schools system.

Now the minister

may argue that those persons who have children in independent schools

pay homeowner taxes too, and this is a way of getting some of that

money out. That would only be an adequate and fair argument if some

relief were given to the homeowner by further provincial contribution

to the independent school system. What this does is create two serious

problems. There's the dollar and cents problem — 60,000 students in the

city of Vancouver are getting the short end of the stick. The second

problem — and perhaps it's even the greater in the longer run — is an

undermining again of the authority of the local community to create its

own priorities for the expenditure of tax moneys for educational

purposes. It is no decision of the local school board in the city of

Vancouver to provide that unequal amount of money to the students

involved. It was purely the decision of the Ministry of Education to

use those figures based on the total taxation rather than only on the

provincial contribution. It's created a very serious unfairness in the

application of those funds available for education.

I have

pleaded with this minister to provide provincial funds for almost

There's not a drop in the bucket, not a penny, not a token from the

[ Page 639 ]

second

language to achieve an education in the city of Vancouver. Is there any

money from the province? No. Yet one-tenth of the students of that

jurisdiction receive one-third of the money.

Let's not argue

that it's the principle of aid to independent schools; that argument's

over. I argue equity; I argue fairness. And it's not fair to take the

elitist attitude that because someone has sent his child to a separate

school, an independent school, they should receive more of a share of

the provincial contribution towards education costs. It's simply not

fair.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other provisions of this

Act that I'm sure my colleagues wish to raise and point out to the

chamber in the hopes that the minister will withdraw these offensive

provisions, in the hope that the minister will take a closer look at

those briefs that have been presented to him, painstakingly arrived at

through research at the community level, and not just wave his hand or

look up at the ceiling as he always does and not listen to debate in

this chamber. Be a considerate minister, someone who'll be remembered

as a person who was fully supportive of the public education system,

and yet showed courage in providing aid to independent schools. But to

show courage and independence in that sense, and back-of-the-hand

treatment to the already existing public education system, makes his

actions notorious and will make his memory infamous.

There

are many people who do not have children in the public education system

or do not have children in school at all who do not resent paying their

taxes. And there are many people who have their children in the public

education system who do not resent public aid to independent schools,

but they are 100 percent opposed to a formula which prefers the

privileged view over the many.

The other serious point that

should be made.... For the time being, Mr. Speaker, I will put these

figures on the record, because we've now had a year of aid to

independent schools, and we now can see what's happened. Many parochial

schools have received grants. Many schools of various denominations and

philosophies have received grants consistent with the Act, but there

are some schools that I think should be pointed out, and I don't think

it's unfair for me to draw attention in this chamber to some of those

schools.

St. George's School has 592 pupils. It's an

all-boys school in the city of Vancouver. It is well known that it is

not a school that espouses the principles of trade unionism or social

democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: What school is supposed to?

MR. LAUK:

These remarks are being made, Mr. Minister, in a satirical way. I'm

hoping you can apply Education 101, that you got a C-minus in, and try

and grasp the satirical content.

With 592 students, the

total provincial contribution to that school was $301,000. That school

has recently purchased property from another private school for

expansion at a capital cost expenditure of several hundred thousand

dollars.

Shawnigan Lake has 160 students and $81,000. So as

not to be accused of any sectarian division, let me mention Vancouver

College — 786 students, $400,000.

These are schools

which have primarily — apart from the exceptions that really prove the

rule that are raised on the other side from time to time — as their

occupants students whose families could well afford private education

without welfare. It is an unreasonable argument to use as examples the

independent elementary schools throughout the province to usher in aid

to these schools for students whose families can well afford private

education. Indeed, in the case of some of them are families which have

received great benefit from the legislative program of the SocialCredit government, particularly in the form of taxation reform a la Socred.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's appropriate, and I've taken this much time to

catalogue very carefully the various provisions of this statute that

collectively have drawn this opposition together in opposing this bill

in principle and second reading.

MR. COCKE: It's hard

to resist following my fine colleague, who made a marvelous

presentation. I want to deal with one particular area, and that's the

area where one can purchase a right to immediate financial assistance

by purchasing an authority. When the minister first introduced the bill

on independent schools some time ago, there was some grave concern

about proliferation, and I can sure see the opportunity for

proliferation here.

What, for example, constitutes an

independent school? You see, you can acquire an independent school from

an authority. That doesn't necessarily mean that the authority gives up

their independent school, in my view. If I am wrong, I would sure like

to be assured.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, this gives a

marvelous opportunity for proliferation. They could multiply like the

amoeba. I can see, too, that some groups could come in, purchase a

school from an authority, and before you know it, lo and behold, we

have the Moonies operating an independent school in British Columbia.

Why do I say that? Because there's no ministerial discretion here. It

just says that

section 5 is amended. There is nothing there that would

indicate to me any safeguards whatsoever. Won't that minister be a

surprised minister if suddenly he finds the Moonies have purchased St.

George's School? They probably have the money. We know that St.

George's is wealthy, and we know, incidentally, Mr. Member for

Vancouver Centre, that they haven't reduced their rate. They still

charge $5,000 per student per year.

Despite the minister's

great help, what they've done actually is seen to it that they have an

opportunity to get into an expanded real estate proposition. But I

believe that this aspect of this Act is dangerous. It does what the

minister possibly even planned to do in the first place — let

proliferation reign.

So now they don't have to do their

five-year stint to prove themselves. All they have to do is go out and

purchase from an authority, an independent school. What might that be?

Let's say we have a very large independent school with 200 or 300

students. A portion of that independent school could be an independent

school with all the attendant good fortune in that school, and

immediately receive financial aid.

The safeguard before was

that any school going into business, such as the Moonies, would have to

have at least five years to show that they were worthy of financial

support. There would be that possibility. Now suddenly

[ Page 640 ]

we're in a position where an authority can sell an independent school to whoever the taker might be.

Mr.

Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre says that we create, when we

do this sort of thing, an opportunity to make money on these kinds of

transactions. He says it's like selling a taxi licence or like selling

an egg quota or a milk quota and all these other marvelous things by

which governments over the years have managed to assist people in

getting rich.

Aside from that, though — I'm getting a little

more serious — I believe that this is the minister's way of assisting

with the proliferation of independent schools. He rather hinted to us

that he wanted to help all those poor folks out there who had, over the

years, been supporting their children, paying the shot and also paying

their taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he's suggesting we're going

to make it easy for people to get into the business. I really don't

think that it's a good idea. As a matter of fact, I think that this

subverts the whole question. I think we really have to do a lot of

thinking in terms of independent schools, particularly with that rather

weird finding of a human rights committee that met just the other day.

I really think that that has some very serious consequences for this

province if that is the kind of thing that is going to happen around

the independent schools situation.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't

the minister get up and announce that he is going to take this aspect

out of a rather bad bill? It's interesting that practically all the

major departments of governments are now introducing their own omnibus

bills. In the old days there used to be one statute law amendment Act.

That was from the A-G and that included everybody's bits and pieces.

Now

the major portfolios come along with their own statute law amendment

Act. That's, of course, a description of a potpourri. What you can do

in that kind of a bill is lose some very, very important changes and

hope that people will overlook them. This, as far as I am concerned, is

a major change and should have been a bill in its own right. If for no

other reason, I can see no support for this bill because of that one

statute amendment.

MS. SANFORD: The member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is quite correct in mentioning the

minister's constant moves towards the centralization of authority under

his control here in Victoria. He is continually assuming all of these

powers unto himself and yet at the same time he is attempting to give

the impression that he is giving the local school districts more

autonomy. At least he is attempting that in this particular statute

that we have before us this afternoon.

The Minister of

Education in the NDP administration, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly), led the way in permitting local school districts to appoint

their own school superintendents. She started by allowing those school

districts with 20,000 or more students to appoint their own

superintendents — not from any lists that she provided but rather at

the discretion of those particular school districts. Since that initial

move was made by the former Minister of Education, there has been a

great deal of pressure from school districts throughout the province to

enable them to appoint their own district superintendents, even if they

had fewer than 20,000 students within their school district. The

minister here has indicated that school districts will be able to

appoint — by regulation and if they have a given number of students

within their school districts — their own school superintendents. But

it is from his list. We have 75 school districts in the province and

the number of people who are on the list will be somewhere around 80 to

85. How much choice will the school districts have if there are 75

school districts and only about 80 or 85 people from which to choose?

The

school boards, I think, in a number of cases will say: "There is no way

that we want to follow what the minister is providing us in this

particular amendment to the legislation. We don't want to pay the full

shot for hiring the superintendents. We don't want to pay for all of

the benefits that are currently paid for by the provincial government,

because we don't really have the choice after all. The minister is

making the choice for us and is simply providing us a list." I would

not be surprised if a number of school districts in the province

indicated that this was not good enough, and that the Minister of

Education still controls it from right here in Victoria.

The

legislation provides for the appointment of superintendents according

to the regulations that are set up by the Ministry of Education. I

would like to ask the minister whether or not the specifications have

been drawn up by order-in-council to indicate to the school districts

what size school district will be permitted to appoint its own

superintendents. The figure that has been bandied about is 4,000, and

I'm not sure if that order-in-council has gone through yet, but I

certainly would like the minister....

HON. MR McGEER: Last week.

MS. SANFORD:

It went through last week? All right. That means that those with 4,000

students and more will be able to employ their own superintendents if

they utilize the minister's list, and he makes the choice.

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, all right. I'd like to have the minister enlighten us on that.

If, in fact, that is not the case, I would be very happy to hear about

that. But, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that the minister has made an error

in bringing in amendments to the Independent Schools Support Act under

this particular statute. He does leave the option open for any group —

no matter what cult, whether it's the Moonies or any other cult — to

come into this province and purchase a private school from an existing

authority, and automatically they can assume the five-year stipulation

for funding purposes. There is nothing to prevent any group coming in

from anywhere in the world, as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, to

purchase a private school and automatically be entitled to funding. If

they make that purchase, they can then assume the term — according to

the statute here — of the authority they are purchasing from. In other

words, if a school has established that they have been in operation for

five years and are now receiving the funding, they can sell that school

to any other authority and that new authority will assume the five-year

stipulation and automatically be entitled to funding through the

Independent Schools Support Act.

I think it is very

dangerous, Mr. Speaker, and the reference to the Moonies is very timely

at this point. There is so much publicity within this province about

the Moonies and their activities. But I would really like to hear from

the

[ Page 641 ]

minister

how he's going to prevent a cult from coming in and purchasing a school

and then automatically being entitled to funding under the Independent

Schools Support Act.

MR. HYNDMAN: I just want to make

a couple of remarks for the record about the topic of St. George's

School, Mr. Speaker. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) raised

the topic, and there were a couple of bald inaccuracies in what he had

to say. I think this topic and this debate deserves at least accuracy

in the facts involved. To many it is an emotional topic; it's a very

important topic; and across the country over the years the question of

financial aid to independent schools has provoked at times passionate

and heated debate. It deserves at least contributions of accuracy.

Now

the member for New Westminster, if I heard him correctly, had the

following things to say in singling out St. George's School. He was, I

believe, alleging that, in spite of the financial aid now provided to

independent schools, fees at St. George's have not been reduced. He's

wrong. The fact is that fees at St. George's School have been reduced

as a result of that financial aid, and those reductions appear as a

very clear credit when the regular fee-billing statements are received.

There

is a more important aspect, though, to the snide suggestion by the

member that the application of financial aid to independent schools had

not produced financial benefit to the community. If the member had done

a little of research, he would have found that in addition to fees

being reduced as part of the result of financial aid, a much expanded

scholarship program is being provided to enable students not otherwise

able to consider attending a school like St. George's to consider it.

So in those two very important respects the financial aid program

introduced by the minister is producing very significant benefit to the

community.

Additionally, and considering the member for New

Westminster's oft-spoken concern about the plight of teachers and

teachers' salaries and job opportunities, had he done a little more of

research, he would have found that St. George's — and many other

independent schools — are now able for the first time, as a result of

the minister's policy, to offer salaries competitive with those in the

public school system and, indeed, to offer more occupational

opportunities and more teaching positions for our teachers in British

Columbia.

In those several ways the program of the minister

is producing very direct benefit to the community, and it's just

regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the member for New Westminster has never

been near St. George's to take a look around at first hand, to observe

what the facts are. If he'd do it, if he took the trouble to research

the facts, it he took the trouble to go to St. George's School, which

in his mind — unresearched — he views as some school for spoiled and

rich kids, he would, I think, be surprised to watch those students and

to observe the broad cross-section of young British Columbians from

every walk of life, from every race, from every colour, from every

creed. For any member of this House to stand and suggest that St.

George's is any narrow preserve of the privileged or the rich is to do

a great disservice to this debate and to fly in the face of fact. The

debate, Mr. Speaker, deserves at least the truth of some research.

Before

I sit down, may I just comment on one other aspect of this wonderful,

unravelling position of the opposition on the question of financial aid

to independent schools. It seems to me that the unfolding saga from the

opposition caucus is something like this. In Act I, Scene 1 the

socialist party comes out strongly against financial aid to independent

schools; and in Scene 2 it in fact marches from this chamber and

refuses to participate in the debate on the legislation. Act II has

only one scene: the 1979 provincial election, in which the official

opposition quietly and privately circulates a letter to the Federation

of Independent School Association that says: "Well, quietly we really

are for the policy, so you can vote for us." We've now, this afternoon,

seen Act III of the policy. The election results are in, and now it

appears that while they were at first against it, but then in a private

letter for it, they are going to be for it only in the case of some

independent schools, and others will be forgotten about. It's rather a

case of selective amnesia, Mr. Speaker.

I think this debate

deserves two things: some decent research, some truth and some facts

from the opposition; and at least some attempt at consistency by the

opposition, as a service to this chamber and the people of British

Columbia.

In sitting down, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate

the minister for the policy he brought in, and the obvious merit of the

policy seen in practice day by day.

MR. LAUK: Rising

under standing order 42, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state on behalf of the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that his remarks were correct as

stated with respect to the reduction of fees to St. George's. He urges

me to suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) that

he visit the school for himself.

Secondly, with respect to

the reference that a letter was circulated during the election

campaign, there was no letter circulated by me, Mr. Speaker, during the

election campaign. That remark is totally inaccurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Under

standing order 42, it is my understanding that we can provide an

opportunity for a member to make corrections in a speech that he

himself made. However, I don't understand how you can make corrections

in a speech that is made by another member in the House.

The hon. Minister of Education closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, as I undertook to do in moving second reading, I said I

would answer questions that the members opposite might have with

respect to individual sections of this omnibus bill.

Moving

in reverse order, Mr. Speaker, of the points that were raised, the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has got it wrong with respect to changes

that have been made to permit local employment of superintendents. It's

going to achieve precisely the opposite of what she supposes.

the system exists today, only provincial civil servants, with the

exception of the seven districts that have local employment of

superintendents, may be employed as superintendents, and therefore the

Ministry of Education gives to the local area a short list from which

they select.

This bill, and the regulations that have been

passed by order-in-council, will permit a district to have a list as

long as they desire, to make their own selection from anybody

[ Page 642 ]

who

has a teaching certificate in British Columbia, or is eligible for one,

and meets minimum requirements that we have already established as

guidelines. Their list can be as long as the teachers' list in British

Columbia for those who have had a certain amount of administrative

experience as principals, directors of instruction, or what-have-you.

So it expands the opportunities.

Quite the opposite, Mr.

Speaker, to what that unruly constituent of mine, the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), suggested with respect to tenure, the

amendments that we have brought in give tenure to teachers. They don't

take away any guarantee, as he suggested. It provides a guarantee, so

that if a superintendent is let go because the local district did not

wish to reappoint the superintendent, we provide that that man is not

turned out on the street, but is given a job as a teacher.

Now

what these amendments to the Public Schools Act must do is to permit,

because of declining enrolment, the reassignment of administrators

whose schools have disappeared from under them to a teaching post in a

district.

We have said — and this is nothing new that has

been brought in through the back door — that we consider, in the

Ministry of Education, as a philosophy if you like, that the teaching

function is the important function for teachers, not the administrative

function. While they may accept an assignment as a principal or as a

superintendent for a period of time, we do not wish to guarantee, at

the taxpayers' expense, an administrative job for life for such a

teacher when there is no job, in fact, for that person to do. Now

surely that's not an unreasonable position to take.

At the

same time, we do guarantee tenure for that person on the presumption

that if a person is a good enough teacher to move up into the

administrative level, then he must have been a superior teacher in the

first place and would be a credit to the classroom because of the

original ability that that man demonstrated in order to get promotion,

and because of the additional experience he has had as a superintendent

in the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: A man or a woman.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Man or woman. As the Attorney-General knows as a lawyer — and heaven

preserve us from their

interpretations — for legal purposes it can

apply to either sex.

MR. MACDONALD: Very few women become administrators.

HON. MR. McGEER: Now several members....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: May I continue, Mr. Speaker? Several members have raised the subject of independent....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: There's chatter all the time. You mention lawyers, and you get this gabble in the background.

The

question was raised about how independent school authorities will be

traded like taxi licences. That's what a couple of members meant —

somebody nods and agrees with that. Years ago a former colleague of

mine who used to sit where the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) now

sits — I sat right in the corner — described how he got the exclusive

rights to whaling on the west coast of North America. It wasn't

difficult for him to get those rights. It didn't cost him any money

because, as he explained, he had an exclusive right to lose money. This

is what somebody has if they take on an independent school; the right

to lose money. As our legislation points out, the amount of money given

to assist independent schools to keep their doors open is 30 percent of

the cost of operating those schools. The person is invited to provide

the other 70 percent by whatever means. With the cost of operating

schools today running in the public school system in the order of

$2,000 a year, that's an invitation to spend a considerable amount of

money that's well beyond the capability of the citizens of our province

to supply in tuition fees.

This amendment in here is to

provide continuity of the schools. Not everybody can afford to continue

losing money. Quite frankly, there are some situations where, if an

opportunity were not given for another authority to take over the

responsibility for losing money, the school would lose its continuity;

its doors would be closed. The way the legislation is written today,

there is no option in that regard.

Now if somebody were to

do as the member suggested, the Moonies could come in to start their

own cult. So they find a school they can buy, under another

section of

the Act; and the inspector of schools is permitted to lift the licence

of that school. It isn't providing a continuity of the school, which is

the reason for bringing this amendment in, to permit people to lose

money and to keep our independent schools open. So it is again exactly

the opposite of what the members who raised that question suggested in

their line of argument.

It was even suggested by the member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that another

section of this Act,

applying to the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority,

was going to be used to provide capital for independent schools. Had

the member done his research, he would have realized that under

section

1 of this Act, where the educational authorities are designated by

regulation, only those educational institutions which are under the

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act are eligible for this capital

funding. The form it appears in your statutes today is because the

Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act was passed

before our Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. Since the time that

financing authority Act was passed by this Legislature, we have created

five new provincial institutes. But, by regulation, only they can

receive assistance under the Educational Institutions Capital Financing

Authority Act. That's the way it's going to remain.

MS. SANFORD: What about private schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: There's no provision under this Act for financing private schools.

MS. SANFORD: If they're designated?

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, what's designated — the regulation is there. It's only those

institutions that are under our Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act,

which was passed the year after this Educational Institutions Capital

Financing Authority Act, and where we were designating new institutions

and we had to provide for their capital. Post-secondary institutions

are designated under a different

[ Page 643 ]

Act. The member could have found that out by reading the order-in-council.

think that I've dealt with most of the substantive questions that were

raised under individual sections of this Act, and it only falls to me

now to refer in general to the principles that are involved here and to

the responsibilities of the NDP in researching this Act before they

entered into debate. Every single one of the points raised by the NDP

is wrong. It's been an incorrect

interpretation, and proper researching

of the Act would have led them to the correct conclusions. Only in one

instance — their references to the Independent Schools Act — have their

true colours been revealed. As the second member for Vancouver South

(Hyndman) has stated, again and again we have this double standard

being provided by the NDP. On the one hand, with every single

opportunity they have they speak against this Act and its principles.

Yet every time it comes to vote or they go to the electors, they do

precisely the opposite.

The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) may have said he issued no letter to independent schools, but

I'll tell you that somebody did. The canvassers that went around in the

Vancouver–Point Grey riding certainly picked up that letter. It was

given to them by the people who were canvassed, and it was signed by

"Gary Lauk." Whoever the Gary Lauk was who signed that letter obviously

wasn't the first member for Vancouver Centre, but it certainly stated

that the Gary Lauk who signed the letter had the authority of the NDP

caucus to assure the people living in that neighbourhood that their

school would be funded. But now, when it comes to guaranteeing that

sort of thing by vote in the Legislature, here is that member speaking

against it and saying that he's going to vote against the particular

amendments that would permit this funding to go on.

What

happened between the time that letter was circulated by the unknown

Gary Lauk and what we have in the manner of debate in this Legislature?

Are there two Gary Lauks, or is there some inconsistency in that party?

If it turned out that the schools that are represented in the area that

my canvassers canvassed and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty)

canvassed are to be supported but other independent schools are not to

be supported, then might we have from the real Gary Lauk and from the

NDP caucus a list of those independent schools in the future that are

to receive funding? Perhaps some that he mentioned today are going to

be cut off the list. Have you got a list of schools whose licences you

will take away, so they'll no longer get funding? When will you bring

in changes to the Act that will include some schools and exclude

others? In the next election will you circulate a letter under somebody

else's signature saying: "We'll really fund these schools. Don't worry

about the things that we say in the Legislature. They're really not

true when it comes to votes."? Or for once will this be a party that

will develop some principles and stick to them? You can ask the NDP to

espouse their principles, to champion them, to speak about them in

their conventions, but, Mr. Speaker, never, never ask the NDP to vote

for their principles. That's asking too much.

I want to go

through all the things that the NDP are opposing when they say they're

against this particular bill. They're against the Crown guaranteeing

the loans of all our public educational authorities. They don't want

the universities, the colleges and the institutes to be able to borrow

money with the guarantee of the Crown. They're against that because

they're opposing this bill. They're against the recommendations that we

get from our corporations that there should be at least seven members

on the board of governors of these colleges and institutes. They're

against that; they don't want us to put that recommendation through.

They're against the requirement in this bill that there be program

advisory committees in each of our educational institutions. This is

something that the faculties of these colleges and institutes have been

demanding. They're against that, Mr. Speaker.

They're

against benefits being granted to the employees of these institutions,

so that not just professionals, but all of the employees of our

colleges and institutes who apply by the fair comparison method will be

entitled to the benefits. They want to leave only the professionals

with the benefits.

I don't want to take up the time of the

Legislature, Mr. Member. When you are caucusing on the bill next time,

and when you come to vote in committee, you can perhaps go over with

that member some of his inconsistencies, so that at least he'll be able

to display his true principles when it comes time to vote on this bill

section by section. He's against the local employment of

superintendents — and so is that NDP caucus, despite the fact that this

has been a request of the B.C. School Trustees Association,

You're

against giving tenure to people who are in all administrative posts in

our public school system. That's what you're doing when you vote

against this bill. You're against teachers who are in the

administrative system and who are receiving the benefits of the

Teachers' Pension Act. And I think we might as well put it on the

record that the NDP is against any educational progress in British

Columbia, because everything that is included in this bill represents

progress in our educational system. They're against it all.

had the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stating that he would

vote against this bill on the amendments to the Independent Schools

Support Act alone. He would use his power as a legislator to block all

progress in education in British Columbia because of that alone,

because he's so strongly prejudiced against the independent schools.

Yet when it was time for that member and the others in this NDP caucus

to stand up and be counted on the Independent Schools Support Act, they

ran from the Legislature, including the member for New Westminster.

All

I ask from that opposition over there.... They can be for statutes or

they can be against statutes, but we just want them to for once state

their principles clearly and distinctly, to vote for them, to stick

with them, and not to give doubletalk to the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 644 ]

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

- Nicolson

Lauk

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Passarell

King

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

Bill 18, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, 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. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 89: minister's office, $164,938.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Before going into debate of these estimates I'd like to make one or two

comments, if I may, about the ministry I took over on December 6, 1978.

First of all, I'd like very much to pay tribute to one or two people

who have helped and who continue to help me to understand this rather

complex and very large ministry.

My Gaelic friend Ben Marr,

the deputy minister, has been considerable help to me, including

translating for me in Sweden. It seems to me that the Swedes understood

Scottish as well as I did. He has brought his unique genius to play in

reorganizing this ministry, and without him the government would be

very much the poorer indeed.

Without running into the error

of by praising some appearing to be derogatory of others, I would just

like to refer to four other gentlemen who are assistant deputy

ministers under the new reorganization: Mr. Geoff Simmons, who is the

deputy minister responsible for water basin planning, water allocation,

water supply, et cetera; Mr. Al Murray, who is the assistant deputy

minister for wildlife, fisheries and marine resources, et cetera; Mr.

Bill Venables, well known, I'm sure, to all members of this chamber as

head of the pollution control branch, is assistant deputy minister with

the added responsibility for pesticide control and air and waste

management in the environmental laboratory in Vancouver; and Mr. Earl

Anthony, who used to be the deputy comptroller of the water rights

branch, is now the assistant deputy minister for regional operations

and enforcement responsibilities within the ministry.

Mr.

Chairman, by way of assistance to some members of the committee who may

not be aware of what we're doing in the reorganization of this

ministry, let me very briefly say that we are now in the process of

reorganizing the ministry into eight separate regions. The principal

reason for this is to try to decentralize the administration of the

ministry and to bring its administration much closer to the places

affected.

May I briefly run down the regions that will be

involved, for the members' assistance. They are the Skeena region, with

headquarters in Smithers; Omineca-Peace, with headquarters at Prince

George; Thompson-Nicola, with headquarters at Kamloops; Cariboo, with

temporary headquarters at Kamloops to go eventually to Williams Lake

when the need arises and the volume is such that it becomes a full

region operationally; Okanagan region, with headquarters at Penticton;

Kootenay region, with headquarters at Nelson; Lower Mainland, with

headquarters at New Westminster; and Vancouver Island, with

headquarters at Nanaimo. As I say, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that

reorganization, of course, is to bring closer to the people affected

the administration of the ministry.

There are one or two

matters which I thought perhaps I should bring to the attention of the

chamber in terms of the philosophy of the government towards the

Ministry of Environment and the one or two basic things we're trying to

accomplish.

First of all, not in terms of priority

necessarily but very important to our ministry, is, I think, something

that is long overdue — that is to upgrade the fish and wildlife branch

to the position that they have long deserved in this province and to

give them the feeling that they really are part of the government and a

large and substantial ministry and not constantly buffeted around from

one place to another. I think to a large degree, over the years, they

have felt themselves very much ignored by the government. I think that

we have gone a long way towards doing that already. That certainly is

something that we wish to continue. We also wish to continue assisting

the fish and wildlife branch in administering what I think is a very

unique and innovative part of the years to come, and that is the

fisheries, in all of its aspects, including the administration of

marine resources.

The Salmonid Enhancement Program, Mr.

Speaker, as you know, is dedicated to doubling the salmonid population

in British Columbia over the next six or seven years. All of these

things, I think, bring a new challenge to Fish and Wildlife, consistent

with them being upgraded and put in a position where they are front and

centre in our ministry.

I think probably the main challenge

that any government is going to face through the Ministry of

Environment, whether it be ourselves or any other party in the future,

heaven forbid, is to try and chart the very difficult course through,

if I may put it this way, the dangerous shoals of development, and at

the same time preserve the environment.

I think we all

recognize that to espouse a no-growth philosophy in British Columbia,

even if one did wish to espouse it, simply does not make any sense. On

the other hand, we have probably the last real frontier in the world

and we have an environment and an out-of-doors which must be preserved.

I think that this involves very difficult decisions which are going to

often be unpopular, but decisions which must be made, and made promptly.

am sure that the members opposite recognize the difficulty of the

decisions that any government must make in this field. There is no

decision that isn't a no-win situation. It doesn't matter what you deal

with, there are very vocal and very often well-financed and very

articulate groups expressing opinions on not just two sides of a

question, but often three or four sides. This is always the situation

in which a decision must be made. I think it is what makes the ministry

so interesting and so challenging.

Mr. Chairman, before I sit down and field questions from the members opposite, I might mention that it has been

[ Page 645 ]

brought

to my attention by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) that he may wish to discuss matters relative to my duties as

chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Confederation. I would be very

pleased to do so. I should think that it would probably logically

follow under the travel expenses in the minister's office and I might

say that I have associated with me for those questions the deputy

minister, Mr. Mel Smith, who will come down at the appropriate time.

So,

Mr. Chairman, with those few brief introductory remarks, I am very

pleased to answer whatever questions the members opposite may have.

MR. SKELLY:

As Environment debate leader for the NDP it is my responsibility to

take the other side of the coin on this minister's estimates, and to

examine some of the things that we approve of in what's