1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7105 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Government legislative program. Mr. Skelly –– 7105

Canadian Commercial Bank. Mr. Lea –– 7106

Southeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7106

Disposal of government documents –– 7107

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7107

Mr. Stupich –– 7108

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7108

Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7108

Mr. Nicolson –– 7108

Mr. Blencoe –– 7108

Mr. Williams –– 7109

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7109

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 69). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7110

Mr. MacWilliam –– 7110

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7110

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 71). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7111

Mr. Blencoe –– 7111

Mr. Hanson –– 7112

Mr. Williams –– 7112

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7113

Pacific Vocational Institute And British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7114

Mr. Nicolson –– 7115

Mr. Veitch –– 7116

Mrs. Dailly –– 7118

Mr. R. Fraser –– 7118

Ms. Brown –– 7121

Mr. Reynolds –– 7122

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 7125

Mr. Lea –– 7126

Mr. Michael –– 7128

Mr. Howard –– 7129

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7129

Tabling Documents –– 7131

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the absence of the hon. member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), I'm sure that all members would like to

join me in an expression of the heartiest congratulations and indeed a

rousing welcome and a rousing round of applause to the B.C. Lions for

their outstanding victory yesterday afternoon.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition wishes to

join the government in this case and congratulate the B.C. Lions for a

game well played, and looks forward to the fact that in the future they

will be winning many more Grey Cups and bringing them home to Vancouver.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have

visiting us Dr. David Strangway, president of the University of British

Columbia. He is here to establish a dialogue with members, and while

here he chose to visit the galleries to listen to debate — I'm sure at

a level which he is not accustomed to in the academic world.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon I'd like the House to welcome John and Elaine McLeod from Bowen Island.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery today we have a large

delegation of students from Surrey. On behalf of the two members from

the constituency, I would ask the House to welcome Rev. Marvin Hunt and

45 students visiting us from the Pacific Bible College and Bible

Fellowship Christian Academy in Surrey.

MR. NICOLSON: In view of the success of the B.C. Lions, I

hope it will not go unnoticed that one of British Columbia's native

sons won the world golf championship with Dan Halldorson.

Congratulations to Dave Barr from Kelowna, now living in Richmond. I'm

sure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) joins me in this.

MR. VEITCH: Located in the members' gallery this afternoon,

from the new BCIT, are Mr. Pat Thomas, Mr. Michael Stepler and Mr. John

Waters, all representing the British Columbia Institute of Technology

Staff Society.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Legislature has been in session now for

three days. Most of the material we've been discussing has been housekeeping

material that could have been dealt with earlier this year. I would like to

ask the House Leader a question: when there is only a two-day first ministers'

conference in Halifax a few days hence, why is the Premier not in the Legislature

presenting his proposals to solve the economic crisis in the province of British

Columbia? Why is he away for 11 days when he only has two days' public business

to do at the Premiers' conference?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know if we have a question there.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, first of all, I think you'd better

change your research officer, because that's probably one of the

weakest questions we've ever heard. Secondly, as you're well aware,

hon. member, the hon. Premier is involved in meetings across the

country, and we're indeed looking forward to his return.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the House Leader.

If the Premier is involved with meetings across the country, why did

the Premier call a session when he had virtually no business of any

worth for the province to do? Where is the business on the docket of

this Legislature to deal with the employment and poverty crises that

are facing the province of British Columbia? Why did the Premier call a

session and then take 11 days off, avoiding the Legislature and

indicating his contempt for this Legislature?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I see the hon. leader of the official

opposition had such a weak week last week that he's recycling the same

questions. I think each question that the hon. leader is posing to me

has been responded to very fully and very firmly by the Premier. I seem

to have heard — and I'm sure I wasn't hearing things.... I think

members of the government side heard members of the official opposition

say they were very desirous of returning to a session.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the opposition was very desirous of

returning to this session to see some business done on behalf of the

citizens to create employment and to deal with the problem of poverty.

My question to the House Leader is: where's the meat? Where's the

business? Where's the legislative program to get people back to work in

British Columbia?

[2:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think first and foremost that

the official opposition should take a look at the community and see the

projects that this government has been able to put into place, most of

which — again, correct me if I'm wrong — the official opposition

criticized and said should not proceed. Too bad no northeast coal, too

bad no Expo....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order'.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But those were the positions that you were

taking. However, you're enjoying a little bit of a fanciful political

flight today, but until you come up, sir, with a question of more

substance, there's really not too much we can do with you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the member

for Prince Rupert, I will remind all hon. members that only questions

that are urgent and important shall be permitted, and that we should

not anticipate future action in our questioning.

[ Page 7106 ]

CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance.

In March of this year the provincial government, through an agreement

with Ottawa, put forth $13 million of British Columbia taxpayers' money

to help bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. I'd like to ask the

Minister of Finance what he did to ascertain whether that would be a

good $13 million investment. The minister at the time stated that he

was doing it to pick up some bank debentures. In other words, some

institutions had bought debentures from the Canadian Commercial Bank,

and we were picking those up with taxpayers' money. What did the

federal government tell the provincial minister that would lead him to

believe that it was a good investment of British Columbia tax dollars?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you to the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

I'll attempt to answer the question as he has asked it, but I would refer him

to the statement which I made at the earliest possible time following that weekend

in March.

There were so many discussions with the Hon. Barbara McDougall,

Minister of State for Finance, and with others in the federal

government — not ministers but other officials — including

conversations with the governor of the Bank of Canada, through that

weekend, that it would be difficult in question period to recite all

the points which were offered by the Hon. Ms. McDougall and Governor

Bouey and others. The fact of the matter remains that there was grave

concern on my part, grave concern on the part of others representing

western provinces and clearly concern on the part of the federal

government with respect to the fact that some of the deposits which

were in place at the Canadian Commercial Bank at that time were from a

variety of organizations with their base in British Columbia. Therefore

the paramount consideration that I had through that particular period —

and it's a weekend, I might say, that I will not forget in general for

a long time — was the continued confidence of the people of this

province — I can't speak for other provinces — with regard to the

credit union movement, with regard to other financial institutions and,

indeed, with regard to the entire financial structure in British

Columbia, as well as in other parts of the country.

I have spoken with the hon. Barbara McDougall on a number of

occasions, as recently again as today, in response to a call that she

made with respect to this and other matters. The commission, which is

reviewing the Canadian Commercial Bank matter as well as Northland, has

not concluded its hearings, so has not obviously then filed the full

report.

In terms of detailed comment, I will want to read the final report

of the commission, but given the circumstances of that weekend in

March, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, if it were presented to

me again in that same context, I would take the same action.

MR. LEA: I guess, Mr. Speaker, you can't fault the Minister of Finance

But it is now obvious that they weren't telling all, and I just wonder whether

they told this minister all, because if he had known all, I would be very surprised

had he put the money forward under the circumstances. Obviously the federal

government had information that should have led them not to make the decision

they made. We now know they made a bum decision. Are you going to apply to the

federal government to get our $13 million back into the taxpayers' hands

here?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, through you the member, I have,

both verbally and in writing, communicated to the hon. Barbara

McDougall my concern over all of the circumstances surrounding that

period at the end of March and subsequent, and I have indeed indicated

that insofar as the government of British Columbia is concerned, we

would welcome repayment of the money which we advanced.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Actually, to whoever interjected, it was a

little heavier than that, Mr. Speaker. I have just received a reply

from the hon. Barbara McDougall, and I intend to reply to that letter.

But I want to assure the member for Prince Rupert that this is not just

an exchange of correspondence but, rather, a point which I have made

and to which she has responded, and that will continue. It is not for

me to say, in this House or in any other forum, because I could not

confirm that information was withheld from me; but while the commission

continues its hearings, I have expressed concern — verbally and in

writing — to the federal minister of state for Finance, and she has, I

think quite properly, replied in part to the effect that the entire

report, the entire commission review, is not yet complete. I accept

that point.

MR. LEA: A supplementary. I certainly hope, for the

minister's sake, that they didn't give you all of the information that

they had, because if they had done, I'm sure you wouldn't have made the

decision that you did. Obviously they withheld information from the

Minister of Finance of British Columbia. Would the minister undertake

to keep this House posted on the negotiations with Ottawa — in terms of

getting our $13 million back — through ministerial statements over the

coming days?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give the commitment

— not necessarily in terms of coming days, because not much may occur

over the period of the next 10 or 12 or 14 days. But I certainly

undertake to report back to the House when I have information which

properly belongs with the members of this House. I will be happy to

give that commitment, but not in a matter of days.

SOUTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of

Labour met with the officials of Westar Mining and Fording Coal to

determine some means by which the recent layoffs in southeast coal can

be ameliorated or avoided?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have met with representatives of Fording Coal and Westar Mining.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to those companies in the

southeast, development of the northeast coalfields has cost 200 layoffs

this year alone. There have been cutbacks to 50 percent in the south,

107 percent of contract in the north. Has the minister promised them

some kind of balancing between the marketing of southeast coal versus

northeast coal, which is clearly getting government and Japanese

support?

[ Page 7107 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I've had good discussion with

representatives of Westar and Fording Coal with respect to the coal

production in southeastern British Columbia. Just for the member's

information, there is more coal moving out of southeastern British

Columbia today than they ever moved in their history. It's been done

with less people, no different than sawmilling or pulp milling or

anything else. Across the province, where there were larger trucks and

bigger shovels compared to a few years ago, when there was smaller

equipment operating at the minehead.... The comment made by the member

that northeast is getting special favour over southeast is untrue, and

he knows that very well. It's no different than.... Companies operating

in any part of British Columbia, whether they're building sawmills,

mines, pulp mills or whatever, are entitled to access to their

community, to schools, to sewer and water projects, to highway

projects, and so on and so forth.

I am pleased to say that since 1975 the residents of southeastern

British Columbia, since they joined the government team and moved away

from the sleepy end of the Legislature, have been provided access and

fair opportunity to all of those projects and programs that are

provided by the government of British Columbia, and that is due in part

to the MLA who represents the constituency and in part to a government

that understands the needs and concerns of the people of the interior

of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get it straight. There's been a 50

percent cutback in the southeast, they're at 107 percent in the

northeast, and the issue is: will there be some equitable sharing of

the cutback? Have you dealt with this with your cabinet colleagues?

Will there be an equitable sharing, if we have to face cutbacks, across

the board, so that the southeast is no longer discriminated against as

it has been under this MLA and this government?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for Vancouver East, who would

advise firefighters in southeastern British Columbia how to fight fire

from his barstool in Vancouver, would presume to tell the miners in

southeastern British Columbia that they don't have the ability to

compete with other miners in any other part of the world. I want to

tell you that I have faith and confidence in those miners in

southeastern British Columbia, and I have faith and confidence, too, in

those companies' ability to go out and find new market opportunities

and compete with anybody else in the world in a fair and open-handed

way.

He should also know that while the northeast coal projects were

under construction, two new mines were opened up and built in

southeastern British Columbia. And he should know, too, today, that

there is an expansion of a mine in southeastern British Columbia while

he would go around and talk about gloom and doom. There are, indeed,

quite positive changes taking place in the marketplace, and the

companies in southeastern British Columbia are taking advantage of

those new opportunities today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates question

period. Once again I'll remind all hon. members that "questions and

answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or

opinion." If we would remember those rules, then I am sure we would

have a better and far more informative question period.

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to respond to a question asked of me

in the chamber on Wednesday. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked

me if I would have an investigation into an allegation that the former

ombudsman removed certain files from his office when he left. I wish to

inform the member and the House that I have had an inquiry — I wouldn't

call it a police investigation — into that allegation.

I'm able to report to the House that correspondence and documents

went missing from the office of the ombudsman when Mr. Friedmann left.

A month ago, in early October, the acting ombudsman's office made a

request to Mr. Friedmann for the return of these documents. That

request was not successful; the documents were not recovered from Mr.

Friedmann. A demand was then made upon him by registered mail, which

was not successfully served upon him, and formal demands have been made

upon him within the past couple of days by counsel that the acting

ombudsman has retained to recover these documents.

I might say that the whole matter is in the hands of and under the

authority of the acting ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act, and he

operates independently and retains counsel for that purpose. So I'm

happy to tell the member for Skeena that this is the only information I

have available today. I have no doubt that further information will be

made public in due course by the acting ombudsman.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker. I call second reading of Bill 48.

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to move second reading of Bill 48,

the Society Amendment Act, 1985. Members of this House will recall that

this bill was introduced last spring. The bill permits occupational

groups to apply to the registrar of societies to have their

occupational title and initials registered under a new

section of the

Society Act. Once registration is granted, no other group or individual

may make use of that registered title or initials.

Under the provisions of this bill an occupational group can apply

for registration with the following provisos: that it be registered

under the Society Act; that it have at least 50 members; that it has as

its purpose the promotion of interest of the group, and the granting of

the occupational title and initials is considered to be in the public

interest; and that the society has bylaws in place to define membership

qualifications, membership prerequisites, member conduct and penalties

for misconduct of members. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the

registrar of societies may cancel registration if he deems the terms of

registration have been violated.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

To summarize, this bill accomplishes two objectives. It enables

members of a particular occupational group to protect themselves from

individuals who may claim to have occupational qualifications or belong

to an occupational group when in fact they do not. Secondly, it signals

consumers that an occupational group and its bona fide members

[ Page 7108 ]

have status to conduct activities in the name of that group and for the purposes for which it is registered.

With those comments, I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: In the hope that we may soon see some

justification for calling this particular sitting of the Legislature,

the opposition will support speedy passage of this particular bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the

opposition concurs with the government that this is a positive piece of

legislation, and I therefore move second reading of Bill 48.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Society Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased to rise again, this time on

Bill 66, the Real Estate Amendment Act, and pleased to move second

reading. This bill marks another step toward ensuring our regulatory

function is properly balanced, that it achieves public protection on

the one hand without unnecessarily impeding business activity on the

other. Relating that general philosophy to this bill, the principle

underpinning these provisions is clear. To the extent possible, it is

desirable to expedite land development in B.C. by permitting some

developers to submit a disclosure statement that is shorter and less

complex than a full real estate prospectus. This disclosure statement

would not require pre-vetting by staff before the subject property can

be offered for sale, as is usually the case under our prospectus system.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that I am not proposing removal of

prospectus filing in circumstances where the public is at greater risk,

such as in time-share offerings or offshore projects.

This bill would remove unnecessary and sometimes costly delays for

developers while still protecting the average citizen. Being able to

progress on the deregulation front does not mean we are abandoning the

need to protect the average citizen. The superintendent will prescribe

the form of the disclosure statement, and it will be certified correct

by the developer or his representative. Contravention of this act will

result in increased penalties — up to $100,000 or five years less a day

in jail — when the system is abused.

Also, under this bill, because there is no pre-vetting of

developments where prospectuses are not required — only disclosure

statements — purchasers will be afforded a recision right of three

days. And as I mentioned before, penalties for contravention of

disclosure requirements have been increased.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the government has created a

problem for itself, and it has sought to simplify and to supposedly

solve this problem by really loosening up requirements for the filing

of a prospectus. It is my understanding that there is a delay of up to

four months right now, but it is due to a shortage of staff. The

opposition realizes that on an average project of, say, $5 million,

which is not too outsized, this could be costing as much as $3,000 a

day, and that that is ultimately passed on to the consumer.

We would support this legislation as an interim measure until a

proper government that understands the priorities of people and has

proper consumer legislation can be elected. We will support this as an

interim measure, because I think it is the best that this government

can do. But believe me, while the spelling out of penalties and such is

some improvement, I don't see how the present prospectus system would

have been any problem. It hasn't been a problem for over ten years —

until there were massive layoffs in the department and a backlog was

created. Indeed, even with this new system, I can still see backlogs

being created if other corrective measures are not taken.

So because we don't want to see additional cost burdens placed on

consumers — and it is a very difficult situation — we will support this

rather reluctantly, hoping to amend it when we are sitting over on that

side of the House at some future date.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we have said on this side of the

House that we have been waiting for some meaningful legislation in a

number of areas. This is one particular area — consumer protection and

consumer awareness, and some legislation that would do something for

some of the problems we have been facing in the last year in the

province of British Columbia. The minister knows what I am referring

to. I am referring to companies in the real estate business that are

going bust in the province of British Columbia.

This minister refuses to look at policy or introduce legislation

that to some degree protects consumers. Rather than have some

lightweight consumer-protection legislation before us, we need to see

legislation by this minister and by this government that takes a look

at these corporations that are doing business and, in my estimation,

misleading the public to some degree. I indicated that to the minister.

We have a situation in Victoria in which the Victoria Mortgage Corp.

put out advertising indicating to the consumer or the potential

investor that that company was secure, that its debentures were similar

to guaranteed investment certificates. We had people, particularly

elderly people, buying thousands of dollars worth of debentures in a

very unstable company. This minister refuses to introduce legislation

for future reference that brings in consumer protection.

We have the teachers' cooperative today. We find that in these areas

— these kinds of corporations — there are no inspection requirements,

or virtually none. There are no liquidity requirements or reserve

requirements under provincial legislation. It's time, Mr. Speaker.

Rather than some innocuous piece of legislation like we have today, we

need a total review of how these kinds of businesses do business in the

province of British Columbia. We need to look at policy and legislation

that protects the consumer in these types of businesses and

corporations.

We have in this city and in the city of Vancouver thousands of

British Columbians who have bought into real estate corporations and

companies and who in my estimation have been totally misled as to how

those companies operate. The legislation is poor. It doesn't protect,

and it doesn't set up the

[ Page 7109 ]

checks and balances that British Columbians are entitled to. Above

all else, it brings in a lack of confidence in those institutions and

in our financial institutions in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like this minister and this government to bring in good, solid

checks and balances for dealing with real estate corporations and with

these cooperatives, so that people when they buy into them know that

there's some protection. Let's have that kind of legislation before us,

rather than some innocuous piece of legislation like we have before us

today, Mr. Speaker. People and consumers want checks and balances. They

want to know what they're buying into. There's lack of confidence in

this government and in those financial institutions; it's hurting

investment in the province of British Columbia, and it's hurting in the

area of job creation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the minister that

sat twiddling his thumbs all through the Victoria Mortgage debacle here

in this city, the man who should have been on the job, reviewing

questions like that, where countless British Columbians lost....

Some of them lost their life savings as a result of his inactivity and

the lack of vetting in that department, and the rest of it, and now

he's moving again in a direction that.... One would have thought

that, after all of those losses suffered by British Columbians through

Victoria Mortgage, which for them was every bit as serious and

devastating as the Canadian Commercial Bank or any other institution,

we should now face this prospect.... It isn't fair to the public

not to vet a prospectus. It isn't fair to the public not to review

these matters in some detail and have that process as an ongoing

process that provides some kind of basic minimal protection at the

beginning.

I remind the minister: he's responsible for a lot of these agencies;

he's responsible for the financial institutions in this province and

for other regulatory bodies related to them. It's abundantly clear to

me that he doesn't take that job very seriously and that he hasn't had

a careful review in terms of a conservative approach to a whole range

of questions with respect to these institutions. Victoria Mortgage is

just one sad example. What he is doing is opening up his vulnerability

further, with respect to this legislation that's before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs closes debate on Bill 66.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To respond to the members opposite, the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about delays. I concur

that one of the reasons for this change in policy is the time delay,

where developers, those people raising money for new developments, only

have a window in time to do that, so that if the document is held up

for vetting in the superintendent's office, the opportunity to raise

capital might be lost. But it's not, Mr. Member, due to a shortage of

staff. You would be interested to know that there have been no cutbacks

or reductions of staff in that particular sector of the corporate side

of my ministry. What we have had, in many cases, is reviewing of

prospectuses, many of them coming in — which indicates economic

activity — only to be frustrated through the delays of having to have

them vetted and of material going back and forth. In many cases a lot

of these issues that they're waiting for approval on are now dealt with

by other approving officers — i.e., municipal councils and municipal

staff that deal with whether or not a property has light and water,

etc. We were really duplicating a lot of activity. But when you got a

document in, you had to ensure that it was completed.

[2:45]

Now the system that has been developed in this bill is to require a

disclosure statement meeting the criteria to be set down by the

superintendent and then certified by the developer or his

representative that this is true and factual. The information is there

for the consumer to see whether it is a good purchase or not. However,

the costly delays of going through the system have now been set aside,

with one exception: time-share or off-shore developments still require

a full prospectus. But what we have done — an approach that I think is

correct — is that we have said to the entire community of developers:

"Here is the flexibility you want. You must disclose all the factual

material. If you fail to do that and misrepresent your product — your

development — you will pay a severe price." We raised the fine limit up

to $100,000, and we also have a provision as an alternative that that

developer can spend up to five years less a day in jail.

I'm one, Mr. Member, who believes very sincerely that we should let

the marketplace work, and that means that 98 percent or 99 percent of

those people who are honest business men and women in our province can

get on with the job, but those who abuse the system will pay the price.

That's why this development has taken place in this Real Estate Act. I

think it's a good positive approach and one that's been concurred with

by the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Urban Development

Institute and by members of the legal community who have had input into

this bill. So we have now, I think, a fair and equitable approach to

dealing with new developments.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about consumer

protection. I mentioned in my opening remarks, I believe, that there

was a cooling-off period — a rescission period — of three days for

decide after that that maybe they couldn't afford it. Therefore they

have the opportunity to back off. I also mention again that there are

severe penalties to those who abuse the system, and there are

prospectuses required for time-share and off-shore developments.

The second member for Victoria talked about lightweight legislation.

I don't agree. I think it's positive legislation. I think it's

legislation that allows the marketplace to work, but it also puts in

place severe penalties for those who abuse the system.

The second member for Victoria talked about investors in Victoria

Mortgage Corp., which really, Mr. Speaker, does not apply to this bill.

He talked about the Teachers' Co-op, which also doesn't really apply to

this bill. Those people were making investments, if you look at the

Teachers' Co-op, as member-shareholders of their cooperative, a common

bond institution that has the opportunity to express its views as

member-shareholders and the opportunity to give guidance to their

directorship or their management. They made some investments and were

caught in the downturn of the economy.

I would say one thing: although the members opposite want to attack

that institution, I give them a lot of credit, Mr. Speaker, for taking

the tough decision they had to to get control of the situation. I'm

quite hopeful that they'll be able to work themselves out of the

situation they find themselves in, because they took action quickly and

dealt with the problem themselves, rather than looking to government to

solve the problem.

[ Page 7110 ]

Mr. Speaker, again the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) talked about Victoria Mortgage and insisted that there was

still a requirement to vet. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation

provides all the protection to the consumer, provides the criteria for

the developer and provides penalties where those people may abuse the

system. I think it's a positive piece of legislation, and I'm pleased

to move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again I'm pleased to rise to

move second reading of another bill, Bill 69, the travel agents

amendment bill. These amendments are the result of a review of travel

services initiated by my ministry at my request earlier this year. The

review identified changes necessary to continue effective delivery of

the act, to return the travel assurance fund to a sound base and to

minimize future risk to the fund.

I believe this bill is timely and that both the industry and the

public support the objective of improving administration of the Travel

Agents Act.

Through extensive consultation with the travel industry associations

and other interested travel representatives, these legislative

proposals were developed to meet three objectives: firstly, to enhance

the registrar of travel services' power to monitor and control

high-risk registrants; secondly, to minimize future risk to the travel

assurance fund; and thirdly, to provide for a travel council to provide

input into decisions to be made by the registrar.

Mr. Speaker, the Travel Agents Act, passed in 1978, was designed to

protect moneys paid by consumers for travel services, with a minimum of

interference to the normal business operations of the travel industry.

As measures to increase confidence of consumers and to enhance

viability of the industry, these amendments should be supported by

members of this House.

Since I commented on the highlights of the amendments at the first

reading, let me add, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments represent one

part of my ministry's response to the need to tighten up the

administration of the act. Operationally, we have recently appointed a

full-time registrar with 25 years of experience in the travel business,

and we are increasing the use of computers to improve monitoring

capabilities of agents.

Taken in concert with the regulatory changes which will be required

to implement the intent of these legislative amendments, I am confident

the act and its administration will be improved, to the benefit of the

industry and consumers alike. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't

understand why this present bill is before the House at this time,

although it does address a very narrow range of problems. I can't

understand why it has come up at this point, because this legislation

does nothing to resolve the immediate problem that this House should be

sitting to resolve, and that's the creation of jobs in this province.

It has done nothing to answer the critical concerns of revitalizing our

economy, and I really don't know why it's before us at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thought, with great expectation, that when the House was called

back into session we would come back for a purpose and a reason: to debate and

discuss some of the issues of critical importance that face this province today

jobs.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It seems

to me that we have a bill before us which deals with a specific topic.

Whether the member feels it should be here or not is surely not

relevant, when he moves on to other topics. This is a very specific

bill presented by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Debate on a

bill should be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and not to

other matters or other legislation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to emphasize

was the point that although this bill does address many of the concerns

relevant to the travel industry itself.... My question was: why was

it being brought forward at this time, when we could be doing other

much more vital business, addressing some of the very serious concerns

that face this province at this time?

We've got no real difficulty with the bill in itself. The bill tries

to deal with recurring problems in the travel industry. It does strike

a reasonable balance between protecting the traveling public and

preventing responsible travel agents from being held liable for debts

of their less reputable colleagues. It does makes sure that the travel

assurance fund is maintained to an adequate level, so that further

loans or topping up from public sources hopefully will not be necessary

in the future.

It does address those concerns, and it does it fairly successfully,

giving the registrar of travel agents broader authority through other

legislative means. My colleagues and I have no difficulty with this

bill. It's a minor piece of housekeeping legislation. My concern that I

initially addressed is: let's get through this stuff. Let's get on to

more critical debates. Let's not waste any more time with minor

housekeeping amendments such as this.

We will support the bill. Let's get on. to more relevant topics.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the opposition

are going to support this bill. It's a good bill and does relate to

prevention of a problem as opposed to picking up the pieces after it

happens. We've had ongoing discussion with the travel agents'

association in this province, a number of meetings to attempt to bring

forward amendments to the act that would do just that: provide

prevention of a problem, as opposed to having to cure it at a later

date at a cost to the travel agents themselves. As members here know,

travel agents and travel wholesalers that are registered in this

province fund this travel assurance fund and have only had to call on

the government for a loan, which they must repay. They're hopeful that

with these changes, with a little more

[ Page 7111 ]

control in investigative powers by the registrar, we will not see as many failures as we've seen in the past.

It's another move in consumer protection by my ministry, and I'm

pleased to see that the opposition will support it. I therefore move

second reading of Bill 69, the Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2),

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

71, the Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985. Purposes of this

amending bill are to effect a number of administrative changes in the

operation of the commission, to slightly broaden the commission's

mandate and responsibilities, and to improve management flexibility,

particularly in the making of expenditures.

First, with respect to administrative changes, the amendment act

provides for an increase in the commission's membership by one person.

This increase is in response to changing population numbers in the

Capital Improvement District. The amendments also provide the

commission and its agents with legal protection consistent with that of

similar organizations. It further clarifies the appointment of the

chairman and vice-chairman, and it brings up to date the current act's

provision for offence and penalty.

The commission's mandate and responsibilities are broadened. This

amendment allows the commission to widen its funding base through

subscriptions, donations and bequests. It also enables the commission

to enter into agreements and to provide loans, grants, advice and other

services consistent with its mandate of the continuing improvement of

the capital district.

The commission already has authority to enter into agreements with

municipalities, but it would like to be able to work with other

non-government agencies in the capital district, as well as with the

[3:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The amendments to the act further improve the commission's

management flexibility with respect to expenditures and clarify where

an order-in-council is required to expend funds. Under the existing

act, members will note, an order-in-council approval is implied for all

expenditures not explicitly provided for in an appropriation. So this

approval requirement is inconsistent with the commission's operating as

a semi-autonomous agency, and does not recognize that the commission

has been relying more on its own operating revenues and revenue sources.

The commission now receives an annual operating contribution, as

opposed to the government's specifically providing for all costs and

staffing in the estimates.

The amending bill also removes what constituted statutory authority

for the commission to spend funds out of the consolidated revenue fund.

Any capital or operating contribution will now have to be provided for

in the estimates presented to this chamber or, less likely, through a

separate bill.

The new

section 10 maintains government control over the

commission's major capital spending by ensuring that order-in-council

approval is required for all capital expenditures exceeding $200,000,

or for those expenditures that are undertaken in cooperation with a

municipality or some similar authority. However, it allows the

commission the required flexibility to operate, as I said before, as a

semi-autonomous agency.

The amending bill also addresses the concerns expressed by the

office of the auditor-general by clearly delineating those occasions on

which the Provincial Capital Commission must seek order-in-council

approval for expenditures. It should be noted, I think, in dealing with

Bill 71 that provincial government support will continue to be

appropriated and fully disclosed in the estimates, and that the

commission, as it has, must continue to provide an annual report to the

Legislature, including financial statements audited by the

auditor-general.

I would think that a number of members of the Legislature are very

keenly aware of the significant contributions made by the Provincial

Capital Commission and its predecessor organization, the Capital

Improvement District Commission — that first body being established in

the 1950s — as both have assisted in the enhancement and beautification

of the capital region of British Columbia. This bill is intended to

facilitate increased activity by the commission and, as a result, to

ensure continuing improvement of many features of this capital

district, in which many of us take great pride. I move second reading

of Bill 71.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to join the minister in talking about

the work that the Provincial Capital Commission has done in past years,

and certainly add our support to that. It has indeed done some useful,

progressive and innovative things in this community. There are a couple

of things I want to talk about for the future. But first let me say we

will be supporting this legislation.

I think the Provincial Capital Commission could be expanding its

role. Thus far it's basically been seen as a beautification agent.

We're all very supportive of that, and it's done good work in that

area. But I'd like the government and the minister responsible to

consider this commission's expanding its role to take a look at the job

potential involved in the commission's area of jurisdiction. I'd like

the commission to consider taking a look at proposals for industrial

projects, because the commission does have a broad

section of the

community on its board — all four core municipalities in the capital

district are represented, I believe. I think the commission should be

project-oriented in the future.

I think the commission, for instance, should have supported the

Oakland fish plant study that this government had done. The first

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has done a lot of work in that area.

That report indicated that that plant was viable. The commission should

have been advocating the introduction of that report, and should have

been ensuring that that plant reopened and that the Japanese owners

played a fair game. We could have seen that fish plant open as a

cooperative, with the 300-400 jobs that went along with that

[ Page 7112 ]

plant. The commission did not take a role in that. Here is a body

that has an opportunity, I think, to show some leadership on behalf of

the citizens of the capital region. Employment in this region is what

we want to talk about — jobs, jobs, jobs — and that commission, with

its broad perspective and its broad representation, has the opportunity

to take a look at the Oakland fish plant.

The commission, for instance, could have taken a position and done

some heavy work in the Seaspan situation and in the closing of the

Genstar operation. The commission could be getting this government off

its rear end and doing something about VMD, a fine institution in this

region which is going down the tube because we're not seeing any action

on the part of this government to save those jobs at VMD. We know what

happened with VMD: it was bought by that IEC corporation that came to

town, and many Social Credit friends participated in that IEC scam. We

all know it was a scam; we all know it should have been investigated.

The commission had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to

ensure that VMD, which got involved in that particular fiasco, is saved.

The commission should be looking at job creation. It should be given

the mandate to explore saving industry in the Inner Harbour and in the

capital region. I'd like to see that particular aspect of the

commission endorsed and go ahead.

The second aspect that I want to talk about and which I think is

very important for the future — an issue in this community for many

years and one which this minister has not referred to — is that this

commission does its work in secret. It is not open to the public, so

there's very little public accountability in terms of the checks and

balances of the media and this community in general being able to watch

what it's doing. It meets in secret. Very few people know what it's

doing, and therefore cannot share in the objectives of that commission

and voice their ideas on what that commission should be doing.

I'd like to propose once again, as has been done by other Victoria

MLAs, that that commission be open. It should have open meetings. They

should not meet in secret except, obviously, when they are dealing with

land matters or purchases of land. We all know that that should be done

in camera; we recognize that. But the majority of the work of that

commission should be done in full view of the Victoria public.

It has created problems. It created a long controversy and the

minister knows this — over the restaurant proposal for the old Esso

site where the Victoria tourist bureau is currently located. That got

us into court. Who said what? Was the past mayor of Victoria accurate

in his statements about whether he endorsed that? We don't know. That

proposal came out of that commission. The media were not part of

covering it; they did not know what was said. We don't know how that

proposal for the restaurant came out of there; we don't know who

endorsed what. We got ourselves in trouble with that proposal — and we

still are today — and the community still doesn't understand what

happened, although we've had libel and other lawsuits.

We need to open that commission to public scrutiny and public

accountability. I would ask this minister to seriously look at that,

and recommend to that commission that they do public business in public

view. It's no longer acceptable that that commission meet in secret. It

has got us into trouble. And I suggest that if that commission were

well known in this community and people knew what it was doing, rather

than it meeting behind closed doors, we'd have greater support and

interest, and we'd get citizens of this community suggesting to that

commission ideas for future development, jobs, industrial growth in

this province, this capital region. Open the doors and let the public

see what is happening in that commission. That's my recommendation.

MR. HANSON: I would like to add just a couple of comments to those of my colleague in Victoria.

The Provincial Capital Commission has a presence here that hasn't

been realized fully in terms of its job-creating potential, and I think

one reason is that it doesn't have a clear mandate from the provincial

government. It doesn't know whether it is a property manager, an

entrepreneur or a developer, or a regulator reviewing private

proposals. It appears that the amended

section 5, which requires that

any transaction involving an amount more than $200,000, has to be

managed by the cabinet. Clearly, that doesn't give the owner of the

properties, the Provincial Capital Commission, a chance to deal with

the properties under their jurisdiction.

Let's quickly go through what they hold. For example, they have a

number of properties in the Inner Harbour. The old Esso station located

at the corner of Government and Wharf is tenanted by the Greater

Victoria Visitors and Convention Bureau. The old CPR building on

Belleville Street is rented to the Royal London Wax Museum, ground

floor and basement, and Pacific Logging, second floor. The Blackball

Ferry property: two parking lots at Ship's Point and Reid site, both of

which are located in the Inner Harbour. Revenues are received through a

private contractor that administers the lots on the commission's behalf

There is the wharf at Ship's Point. The Undersea Gardens is located on

the commission water lot and leased at rent. There is St. Ann's

Academy, and other landscaping functions and so on that they have.

The Provincial Capital Commission has, under its mandate, the

management of significant pieces of property in the Inner Harbour area.

As my colleague said, other important projects of economic benefit, of

job creation benefit to the people of this city, could be initiated,

but to reiterate my point, they don't have a clear mandate. They don't

know whether they are to manage it for the cabinet, initiate

development on their own, or just regulate private proposals. I would

like the minister, in his conclusions, to outline clearly the mandate,

the responsibility. To what extent can they initiate things themselves

and how much do they have to rely on cabinet decisions to authorize

action on their behalf?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just on some of these specific beautification

projects, which as a former town planner intrigue me, it does seem that

there has been a strong focus on the inner areas, and there is the

whole region. When one thinks about the huge growth areas of this

region, the western communities of course stack up as the important new

growth area. I think those are areas that could benefit from the kinds

of amenities provided by the capital commission in other parts of the

region.

You can't help but think of places like Langford Lake, for example,

which I think are underrated assets in this region. Or Glen Lake, or

even Florence Lake. All of those lakes could have more benefit in terms

of amenity. In some cases we're not talking about high land costs; in

others we might be. But clearly there could be greater access to these

lakes in the western communities, and that would benefit the capital

region and everybody who lives in it.

[ Page 7113 ]

So I think there is a bit of a blind eye when it comes to looking at

the outer areas. That would apply even to places like Sidney, for

example, which I personally see as part of the capital region, and

which in turn might benefit as well. The MLA for the area might agree,

but that remains to be seen.

There are other areas that invite continuing work, though — Bowker Creek in Oak Bay, for example.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know about that. As you get

closer to the waterfront there are real opportunities that could

benefit that. I wonder if the Gorge work might well be extended. I

think the work that has been underway in recent years on West Bay —

access and so on — is an important new addition in terms of public

access and amenity and benefit; but I wonder if there shouldn't be

another look at the Gorge at this time, particularly with respect to at

least the Songhees land on that side of the Gorge in terms of some

significant opportunities as well.

I am simply suggesting that maybe the horizon should he broadened a

little so that the benefits might be shared and opportunities seized

which to date have been ignored elsewhere in the region.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the three members opposite who participated.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will not, sir, but I have the temptation

to speak for perhaps an hour about the Provincial Capital Commission,

its past....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, actually I'll get to that in just a

moment. I heard the member for Vancouver East interject when I rose to

commence second reading debate: "One job." The commission, when one

considers not only the general operation but the Crystal Gardens

immediately adjacent to this building, has a salary bill of not quite

half a million dollars. It's more than one job.

The commission has undergone significant change from the days when I

sat on it as a representative from Saanich, when it had no staff, and

someone was seconded from a department of provincial government and it

was almost traditional that the Deputy Provincial Secretary attended

the meetings. In fact, in those early days the minister responsible was

usually the Provincial Secretary. Changes have occurred over time.

It's a credit to the late W.A.C. Bennett and to succeeding

governments that, first of all, the commission was established in the

mid-fifties — '54 or '55; I'm subject to correction on the precise

date. But obviously the late W.A.C. Bennett saw the provincial capital

as an important area, and he saw that with a relatively small amount of

money, over time, projects could be undertaken. They could be staged. I

recall clearly, with respect to the Gorge beautification, that when I

took that to members of the commission of that day, looking for a

fairly significant amount of money, they said: "Well, we like the idea,

but you're probably going to take four, five or six bites at this

before you'll finally get it complete."

There was a former member of the official opposition who spoke repeatedly about the secret meetings.

I won't be dealing with these in sequence, but just as I made notes about them.

I leave that really to the commission. Please hear me out. There has

never been a directive from me that the meetings should remain secret;

that they should be open meetings. There's a reason for that. If the

commission makes the decision — and with passage of this bill it will

have two representatives from the municipality of Saanich, two from the

city of Victoria, one each from Oak Bay and Esquimalt, and then it has

a member who nominally represents the Saanich Peninsula but is asked at

the same time to take into consideration the entire capital improvement

area. I did not, when looking at the request....

A number of these legislative changes, by the way, came from the

commission. We were able to agree with some and not agree with others.

But the initiative for the amending act came from the commission. I was

not about to expand the commission to provide for one member each from

Central Saanich, Sidney and North Saanich, because I think one then

begins to see a body which could be somewhat unwieldy, in terms of

regular meetings, discussion and debate.

If the Provincial Capital Commission decides at its next meeting,

with municipal representation.... They're not all Social Credit

supporters who somehow just arrive and attend a meeting and disappear.

There is strong municipal representation. If they decide they want to

hold every meeting or every other meeting or a portion of each meeting

in open session, that is entirely up to them. I leave it with them.

The member for Vancouver East spoke about moving out beyond the

inner area. I agree completely. Obviously as an MLA who represents a

constituency slightly to the north of this one, I have encouraged them

to do that, but not at the risk of abandoning projects in other parts

of the capital region. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) will have noted, as I'm sure others have noticed, that the

most recent approval, given just a couple of weeks ago, was for an

additional portion of the so-called West Bay shoreline walkway —

$190,000 — not, I believe in that member's constituency, but very close

to it, in the city of Victoria. Obviously here is a continuing part of

a very beautiful shoreline walk, and then it suddenly stopped. That

link had to be closed.

The commission recommended to me, and I was very pleased to endorse

it, the start of something which will go on for a good number of years,

I would think, in a small way each year: that is at Reay Creek, which

is to the west side of the Patricia Bay Highway, in the vicinity of the

eastern edge of Pat Bay airport. It's a little creek which had some

problems, originating at the airport, but which wends its way through

some forested land, through some publicly owned land, under the Pat Bay

highway in a culvert — and that's going to be a major challenge at some

point — and then eventually to the sea; its fall, its drop, from source

to sea is not very great, but a little bit of money was put in there.

Similarly with Brentwood. Those who drive the West Saanich route to

Sidney or Pat Bay airport or Swartz Bay will note that there is

beautification in what could be called the business core of Brentwood.

That was undertaken in cooperation with the municipality of Central

Saanich, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Provincial

Capital Commission.

So we still have an obligation, in my view, to continue to work toward beautification — I use the word in a very broad

[ Page 7114 ]

sense — in the inner part of the capital region — in the precinct,

if you will — but also to reach out. And the member has quite usefully

spoken of lakes to the west of the city. Indeed, I'm sure that the

commission will read of our exchanges today and will start looking at

those. Langford Lake — off the top of my head — I think would present

some pretty expensive problems, as the member indeed acknowledged.

Nonetheless, we are so closely tied with sea and hills and lakes and

streams in this beautiful capital region that the enhancement of those

— whether the enhancement of the shoreline or the rehabilitation of a

small lake, or whatever — is an important part of the mandate of the

Provincial Capital Commission.

I would not want to overlook another point that was made by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who really would like to

alter the mandate of the commission. I can't associate myself with

those remarks, Mr. Speaker, not because they were offered by a member

of the opposition but rather because the Provincial Capital Commission

for some 30 years now has had a mandate and a responsibility, which has

expanded. Who would have expected, 15 or 20 years ago, that the

Provincial Capital Commission would actually be a landlord, would

actually have rental revenue, and would have an operation — more than

one operation, in fact, but I refer specifically to the Crystal Gardens?

The fact of the matter remains that we have several municipalities —

and there are those who suggest that perhaps some of those should be

amalgamated; I make no comment on that. We have regional government

here, as across virtually all of the province. We have economic

commissions. We have other people who are involved in generating

employment in the capital region. I think it would be somewhat

duplicative, in my view, at any rate — we disagree on this.... It

would be somewhat of a duplication to assign....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's better? Strike "duplicative." I think

that it would be somewhat of a duplication to broaden the Provincial

Capital Commission's jurisdiction to include job creation. I don't see

that as the fundamental role.

Another one or two final points, relating to St. Ann's Academy, one

of the most historically important buildings in the province of British

Columbia, the history of which is well known to all members who are

interested in greater Victoria and in the Sisters of St. Ann, who came

here very early on. I was particularly happy that, with the cooperation

of my colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and with the

encouragement of a number of people in greater Victoria, we were able

to secure heritage designation. I see, over a good number of years —

probably one can think in terms of 5, 10 or 15 years — the gradual,

careful, cautious, imaginative restoration of that building, perhaps to

retain the exterior. I know there is a debate with respect to the

so-called new wing, the 1912 wing, as to whether that particular part

of the building should remain or not. Nonetheless, I have been

encouraged by the fact that we have heritage designation for St. Ann's

Academy. That building must not be permitted to just fall into decay.

It must be saved, not just for greater Victoria but for our children,

grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as a building which really is so

closely linked to the origins of British Columbia as a colony and as a

province. To the extent that I am able, for so long as I'm responsible

for the Provincial Capital Commission, I will respond positively to recommendations which come from the commission.

[3:30]

That leads to perhaps the final point. That is that I think there's

perhaps only been one minister who has been responsible for the

commission in the past who dictated or directed the commission as to

what it should or should not do. We have 13 or 14 men and women, who,

by the way, receive absolutely no per diems, no payment whatsoever for

the service they render. This is one of the very few agencies in the

province of British Columbia where there is no per diem. They've not

asked for one and I've not suggested one, because I think it's a very

important aspect of commission work. When we have sufficient numbers of

people such as that — municipal and nonmunicipal representatives — who

bring a variety of interests, skills and talents, people who are

interested in the present and the future and the past of the greater

Victoria capital region area, then I don't think it is correct for the

minister of the day who is responsible for the commission to say: "Well

now, here is your next list of projects. I think you should do this one

first and that one next." That did happen. I don't want a capital

commission that is simply a rubber stamp, saying, "Yes, minister. No,

minister."

I want the commission to feel free to examine a variety of ideas,

thoughts, suggestions; to reject them, pursue them, study them — to do

whatever they wish with them. I want the commission to feel free —

within budgetary limitations obviously — to examine any and all parts

of this magnificent capital region. They've done tremendous work. Their

predecessors did tremendous work. We're now up to.... I'm subject

to correction, but if one looks at the annual report, I believe we are

up now over these years to something in excess of 90 — approaching 100

— individual beautification projects. What a tremendous record of

service that the original members have, the successive ministers who

have been responsible, and present members of the Provincial Capital

Commission.

I take the points that the members have made. They have helped me,

and I'm pleased that I had an opportunity to speak in particular about

the St. Ann's Academy building. Mr. Speaker, this is an important

agency in the province of British Columbia. Long may it succeed, and

may it continue to have the support of all members of this House,

whether their constituencies are within the commission area or hundreds

of kilometres away.

I move second reading of Bill 71.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND

BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

AMALGAMATION ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, Bill 72 was recently introduced and the old Bill 59

[ Page 7115 ]

withdrawn. All members of the House are aware of the contents of the

old bill, and this new bill does cover some additional points.

I might mention that it was certainly advantageous to introduce the

bill last June. The object when we did so was to have it circulated

among all of the people who are affected. As a result of that

circulation, a number of suggestions were made. This bill contains

those suggestions. There are a half-dozen points that I would like to

raise in moving second reading, Mr. Speaker.

The first item, under "Amalgamation and continuation," is that the

two institutes be amalgamated and continued as one amalgamated

corporation under the name British Columbia Institute of Technology.

Another issue came up to assist in the merger, and that involved three

student societies. There are student societies for Pacific Vocational

Institute at the Burnaby campus and at the Maple Ridge campus. There is

also the student society at the British Columbia Institute of

Technology. With the support of the students themselves and their

societies and executives, a request was made to incorporate a provision

within the bill to accommodate the amalgamation of their student

societies at the time the two institutes are merged.

In addition, there was a provision put into the bill bringing the

new British Columbia Institute of Technology under the Essential

Service Disputes Act. The reason for this is that the support staff for

both PVI and BCIT fall in that particular category, as well as the

instructional staff at PVI; the faculty at BCIT do not. The issue which

had to be addressed — and has been in the bill — was to draw a parallel

under the College and Institute Act so that they do not have, in the

case of the faculty for BCIT, the unilateral right to invoke compulsory

arbitration. All others fall under the Essential Service Disputes Act.

The only time the unilateral request can be made is in the event of an

intervention by the provincial government — save and except under the

Essential Service Disputes Act in the matters of health, life and

safety involving hospitals, police and fire.

I might say, a number of provisions within the bill bring it in line

with the College and Institute Act. You will note that a number of

matters have been added to it. One particular item which I specifically

wanted changed is that in the old legislation, approval of admission

requirements can in fact ultimately be made by the Minister of

Education. Why that is there, I do not know. I really don't think

that's my function or the function of any Minister of Education. So

that matter has been deleted.

The additions to the bill on items...they are tabulated on

section 15 and following. I think one of the important items is that

the merged corporation in fact is an agent of the Crown, and it will be

exempt from taxation.

Another item which had to be addressed involved the pension

requirements for both faculty and support staff. The faculty was

interested in having an option open to them which they could elect one

way or the other, on or before April 1, 1986. That has been covered as

well.

I suppose it would be appropriate to make some comment about the

merger itself. Although much of it now is history because of what has

come to pass, I think it would be fair to say that there was

considerable support from faculty, support staff and students for the

merger to take place. To the best of my knowledge, it is moving very

well. Others can make that observation, but I'm pleased that everyone

seems to be happy with what occurred.

1 think, Mr. Speaker, that is all that I would raise at this time.

I'd be prepared to attempt to answer any questions from the members

opposite if there are any. I move second reading of Bill 72.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a fait

accompli. The essential part of this bill is really already in effect,

and a great deal of this is cleaning up certain things. But one thing

that does concern me is that the parliamentary secretary to the

minister is alleged to have given undertakings to the British Columbia

Institute of Technology Staff Society and Mr. Michael Stepler,

president of that society. I'll quote from a letter to yourself from

Mr. Stepler, a copy of which went to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Veitch). It said that during a discussion which they held in May,

1985, with the parliamentary secretary, he has been assured that the

proposed amalgamation had no labour relations implications. You

acknowledged receipt of that letter. The parliamentary secretary also

acknowledged receipt of a copy of that letter and said: "Thank you for

your recent correspondence. I appreciate you keeping me advised

regarding the above captioned subject." He did not object to the

veracity of the statements or the claims made, so we can only assume

that he did give that undertaking.

But in this bill there is a very serious matter which is a labour

relations matter. It was referred to by the minister. It is that they

have had the right to compulsory and binding arbitration and really,

you know, a lot of people in collective bargaining look upon that as an

infringement upon the collective bargaining process. But where it does

exist, and certain groups have elected for it, it has not meant

anything much more than that they tend to follow the other indicators

in the economy, which is regulated by other means. Therefore I don't

see why such a measure had to be given in this bill.

Another thing in the bill I notice is a limitation of liability. The

way in which that is worded is pretty broad. It's rather ironic that

here we have all the municipalities in British Columbia concerned about

limitations to liability, but the only place where we see any

legislation of this type is in this consequential amendment in Bill 72

in the case of the amalgamation of BCIT and PVI.

Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned too with the fact that there is a

prohibition of the Crown expropriating land from this institution, and

it says that there will be no power to expropriate land enacted under

this

section after this

section comes into force "unless the act

expressly applies to that land." In other words, I think that this

section is totally out of order. I don't see how we can be placing what

is almost a constitutional amendment. We are taking a power away from

the Crown which is implicitly a power of the Crown. I'm looking at

section 15, if the minister is looking there. We're taking a power of

the Crown that is implicitly a power of the Crown out of the

legislative agenda. The only way that such a thing can be done, to my

knowledge, is by constitutional amendment. I don't see how we can say

that this is going to apply, and that any act in the future will not

apply. That can't be done. You can say that this act supersedes any act

passed to this date, but to say that this act is going to supersede any

act in the future.... That binds future governments. That clearly

is incorrect, and I would hope that the minister would have a dammed

good close look at that before proceeding.

[3:45]

[ Page 7116 ]

We're going to give the institute the power to borrow money to meet

expenditures. Like the hospitals or the universities, I suppose we're

not going to give them their budgets until they're five and six and

seven and eight and even nine months into their fiscal year. They will

be going into....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm talking about the University of British Columbia, for instance, when I go that far.

Then we'll say that they're irresponsible and we'll force them to

make cutbacks and force them to pay interest charges out of the budgets

when they finally get them. I just don't think that we should go down

that road any further. It's been an absolute disaster where we have

done it.

It is necessary to create certain changes. One could question the

principle of the bill, which is the amalgamation of the two

institutions, and whether the two are going to actually operate and

serve educational objectives better as two separate and distinct

organizations or as one unified organization. But there's not much

point in doing that. That's already a fait accompli.

In this there are clearly labour related matters, some of which have

considerable...such as looking at the pension plan. One other

question, too, at the very outset in the bill would be whether the

successor rights are actually covered for the various institutions. In

passing this bill, I think some people would like the assurance from

the minister that they have their full successor rights under the

labour laws of this province.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that this, member would try

to take something as positive as the merger of these two institutes and accentuate

the negative. I really don't understand that at all. I might just tell him,

for his edification, that both the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education and

myself did meet with the staff society and a group of other people, and the

undertaking was that there would be plenty of time to vet any changes in legislation,

and that time was given, as the hon. minister has alluded to previously.

He also spoke about the borrowing aspects and allowing boards to be

able to borrow. I can tell you, as chief financial officer for one of

the institutions prior to coming back into this House, that that is

something that bursars and chief executive officers have been asking

for for years. I commend the government for taking this forward step in

allowing for better administration.

A little history, Mr. Speaker, for those who maybe are not aware of

the history of the British Columbia Institute of Technology or, in

fact, the Pacific Vocational Institute. The Pacific Vocational

Institute actually predates BCIT, and its former name was the British

Columbia Vocational School. It started many years ago in one of the

buildings at the PNE. There was a need, at that time, to enhance

vocational training in the province.

Someone said, Mr. Speaker, that for every time, there is a season, and I believe

that this is a point in time when season and times have come together. The Pacific

Vocational Institute, in its time, and at the time it was made a provincial

institute, was exactly the right thing to do for vocational education at that

point in time. A little over 20 years ago, the former Premier of this province,

the late W.A.C. Bennett, and the minister at that time, the Hon. Leslie Peterson,

brought into force the British Columbia Institute of Technology. That was exactly

the right thing to do at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the bringing together of these two institutions, as far

as vocational and technical education in British Columbia is concerned,

is exactly the right thing to do at this point in time in educational

history in the province.

I had the good fortune this summer to be able to tour most of the

colleges and institutes in British Columbia, and I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that the college and institute system can and will be at the

cutting edge of economic renewal in the province of British Columbia.

The new British Columbia Institute of Technology will be the flagship

in that particular endeavour as far as the technical and vocational

education is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great pride that I stand to speak in support

of the Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of

Technology Amalgamation Act. The joining of these two important and

innovative institutions will lead to the creation of B.C.'s first

supertech.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I hear a noise blowing in from the interior. I'm just wondering what that is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.

MR. VEITCH: The new BCIT will provide improved education in

trading and technologies and trades which British Columbia needs to

make the most of opportunities in new industries and new processes

which are appearing every day in this province. The amalgamation of PVI

and BCIT represents the provincial government of British Columbia

acting decisively to prepare British Columbians for the future. We've

all known for some time that the global economy in the world has been

in a state of flux. New technologies, computers, manufacturing

processes and medical services have been changing the face of the world

in which we live.

The provincial government faced the choice of being timid and not

diversifying and advancing our economy, or looking ahead and having

enough confidence in ourselves to compete in the new industries. This

Social Credit government had the courage to act and make sure that

British Columbians have access to the training and education they need

to be leaders in electronics, medical technologies, biological

technologies, engineering services and a host of other areas, and I

believe that this is showing vision for the future.

The provincial government stands committed, as always, to

strengthening our vocational and technical education system and to

enhancing our post-secondary facilities and, in doing so, expanding the

economic growth potential for British Columbia. It believes that

cooperation is the way to achieve this objective.

I say that because I've read letters from the British Columbia

Institute of Technology Alumni Association, students' associations,

giving their full support to this amalgamation. Two comprehensive

studies solicit the views of the administration of both institutions.

My impression, from the discussions and correspondence I've had with

members of both bodies, is that there is a very strong confidence that

we will all benefit, in fact that British Columbia will benefit, from

this very important move.

[ Page 7117 ]

There is also a strong confidence in the new president of the

combined institution, Mr. Roy Murray. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker:

don't believe the myth that strong academics are not attracted to our

post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. I can tell you that.

I'm sure that this House joins me in wishing him the very best in his

new responsibilities, and they are great responsibilities indeed.

The new British Columbia Institute of Technology will, in the words

of the Minister of Education, provide a centre of excellence for

high-technology training, capable of transforming the high-school

graduate into a highly competent tradesman and/or technologist.

British Columbia's new supertech will create links between the

trades and technology programs in such areas as fibre optics. These

bridges will allow for more flexible career paths and broader diffusion

into our creative and energetic entrepreneurial business community and

the latest advances in science and technology in the province of

British Columbia. The new BCIT will be able to offer programs including

offerings in cardiac perfusion, cardiology, nuclear magnetic resonance

and tomography. In line with British Columbia's new rule, some of its

older program will be transferred to the college system. For instance,

the food production and agriculture will be transferred to the Fraser

Valley college. The recreation facilities, management and building

service worker program will go to Vancouver Community College. PVI's

adult basic education and business office training program will be

phased out and their enrolment picked up by lower mainland colleges.

VCC's present programs in postbasic nursing, welding and machinists'

training will be moved to the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

The minister has promised that these shifts will take place so as to

minimize disruption to students and to staff, and I can tell you that

that is progressing in a very satisfactory manner.

British Columbia Institute of Technology will be even more

responsive to the changing requirements of employment and standards of

excellence in our economy. It has the full support, I'm sure, of this

government in reaching its fullest ability to be an educational leader

in the whole of Canada. This will contribute to the thorough upgrading

of our creative entrepreneurial business climate.

The partnership between BCIT and private sector entrepreneurs is

being facilitated by the nearby Discovery Park complex. This park is

the largest of four Discovery Parks. All of its 85 acres have been

developed according to guidelines agreed to by the Discovery Foundation

and the municipality of Burnaby. Right now, a new $8 million building

is being constructed by a private consortium on that particular site.

The centrepiece of this park is the $15 million Discovery Park research

building. In all, there are 45 tenant companies which have a private

capital investment of over $2 million and provide 280 jobs to British

Columbians.

It should be noted that in five years of operation the park's

tenants have had a 95 percent success rate. One must remember that they

are active in highly competitive fields such as software, biomedicine,

automotive products and various types of electronics. The students at

the BCIT play an active role in the discovery park. They are constantly

finding work in the park on a full or part-time basis. Many of them

have gone on to start companies in Discovery Park. I would like to

announce that the BCIT Student Association has entered into an

agreement with the discovery park management for a restaurant in the

main building to be called "Bits and Bytes." The administration is

providing the space and the student association will be purchasing the

equipment, running the restaurant and so forth — and that, Mr. Speaker,

is cooperation.

The government is contributing to the emerging partnership and

cooperation we see displayed so successfully at the new BCIT and its

discovery park. Its small business venture capital program will be

producing the investment funds that are necessary for young

entrepreneurs coming out of the new BCIT to turn their ideas into

marketable products and services, which in turn will provide thousands

of new jobs in the province of British Columbia.

The partnership and economic renewal initiative is supplying

colleges with funds to start business liaison programs and exciting new

developments such as a new agricultural centre being created jointly by

Capilano and Malaspina Colleges. The Premier's unflinching promotion of

new export markets for British Columbia products and the defence

against attempts to close those and traditional markets by

protectionism, both at home and abroad, are equally important to the

new BCIT and BCIT's students.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The amalgamation of BCIT and the Pacific Vocational Institute is an

important part of this government's strategy to diversify and advance

our provincial economy. It will be a centre for excellence that will

prepare its graduates for the innovative industries which will be the

success story in this province for the rest of the century and on into

the next. The new BCIT will be an engine of economic growth and new

jobs for all British Columbians.

I believe we have another challenge that we must face, and that is

the challenge of finding new ways of dealing with what we loosely call

apprenticeship. I believe that those interested parties, whether they

be unions or management or educational institutions, must find a way of

bringing trainable people on stream in times such as we face today,

when there are really not many apprentices employed in the system. We

realize that apprentices are those people who are employed, and we must

find new ways of cooperation, in the spirit which created the new BCIT,

to bring trainable people into the marketplace.

[4:00]

I support this bill because the government and myself are committed

to the courage British Columbians have shown in wanting to compete now

and in the future in the most modem industries. The administration that

I have spoken to, the staff, the students and alumni of BCIT and PVI, I

believe, appreciate the strong vote of confidence for them and their

potential, and for the future of British Columbia.

I don't know what the future will be in education, but I do know

that institutions such as the new British Columbia Institute of

Technology will play a strong

part in influencing and changing the

future not only of education but of technology and business in this

province and, indeed, in this country. I hope that government — maybe

10 or 20 years down the road — will have the same courage and foresight

as the two preceding Social Credit governments have had to do such

things as bringing together the PVI and the BCIT, for this is strong,

dramatic, good news for the province of British Columbia, its students

and its future employees and employers. I support this act.

[ Page 7118 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I think it's unfortunate that the member who

just took his seat, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of

Education, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, had to open his speech —

and indeed it was a speech on BCIT-PVI amalgamation — with an attack on

that very pleasant, charming member from Nelson. Yes, it was an attack.

The member from Nelson, I thought, gave a very rational second

reading comment, and at no time did he suggest that the NDP opposition

is against this amalgamation — at no time. He said that right from the

beginning, and it is unfortunate that the member, who was probably

preparing his speech or thinking about it too much, was not listening

to the words of our member from Nelson, who stated quite clearly in the

beginning that he and our party are in favour of the amalgamation.

However, he continued — and I intend to just repeat it very briefly

— with some concerns that we had. One of the concerns is primarily with

the matter of.... We cannot understand why the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has decided to remove something which the

BCIT staff had been given in the past. We don't understand why the

unilateral access was removed. Now we are not getting into the argument

of the pros and cons of arbitration and the access to binding

arbitration. That isn't the issue we are bringing up here.

The issue we wish to present again to the minister is that this was

given to them; it worked. It was only used once, I understand, in 11

years. It seems to us that you're almost waving an unnecessary red flag

up here to the staff and faculty of BCIT. We don't understand why you

have found it necessary to remove this.

Now I know that perhaps it will be said it's to make it consistent

with the colleges, the other institutes. But I think we should remember

that BCIT is a very large and important institution. I think it

deserves to have some attention paid to the fact that they are a very

respected institution — not that the others aren't, but they are the

largest in this merger. We do not understand why you are bothering to

upset what was apparently a fairly good labour accord; it's not exactly

an accord, but the way they had it operating before was primarily

working all right, so why change it?

I hope that the minister will deal with that more clearly than the

parliamentary secretary did. Speaking of the parliamentary secretary,

in that long analysis and speech, which I agree on the whole was a

positive speech, and so it should be.... However, at no time in that

speech which he just gave to the House did he attempt to explain why he

had more or less...not more or less, but he had suggested to the

faculty of BCIT that there would be no interference in this area. You

know, that was just brushed over. I think that that was unfortunate. He

took up much time in this afternoon's debate, but there was no mention

and reference to that. I think that it is too bad that he didn't see

fit to deal more clearly with that aspect of it.

He went through the history of the BCIT from the first Socred

administration through now, but very carefully skipped right over the

three years of the NDP administration. Those three wonderful years,

positive years which the people of British Columbia yearn for and are

hoping to see return very soon, did see the opportunity for BCIT to

have their own legislation and for the faculty and non-academic staff

to also have a right to representation on the board, because the NDP

does believe in and always has believed in this involvement at that

level, at the board level. Prior to our coming into office, this right

had not been granted to them.

We also continued with the programs, inserting the moneys, trying to

create the same program of up-to-date technological advancement for the

students and the ability for those students to go out into the working

world. I think that we, as well as the Social Credit, have recognized

the importance of that institute.

So I simply want to say, without taking up any more time, that I

hope the minister will address this major concern of the faculty. I

hope that perhaps you can give them some hope that there may be some

discussions on this matter before this is put through.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to

talk on the subject of education, because it happens to be a very high

priority with me. Of all the subjects that we deal with as MLAs, this

is one of the ones that occupies a great deal of my personal time,

because it is my view that education, whether it is K to 12 or

post-secondary, is of utmost importance to the future of our province.

In fact, this is the key, as I see it, to greater and greater and

better opportunities for the youth of the province.

I have spent a great deal of time not only in the colleges and

institutes but in the high schools and universities talking with my

friends and colleagues there, many of whom I went to school with,

incidentally, Mr. Speaker — talking about what it is that they are

trying to do. I was even invited at one point recently to address a

group of young high-school leadership candidates who were attending a

conference in Tacoma. It was interesting how the leadership candidates

— and they were boys and girls who were captain of their team or editor

of the newspaper or whatever it was they were doing in a leadership

role there — understood so clearly the responsibilities that went with

education. It was the kids — or the young adults, if you wish to call

them that — who understood better than many adults in the community

today that without the taxes from the corporations and without the

taxes from the individual employees and without the taxes paid on

dividends by the dividend owners, there would be no education. How

simple; what a little equation; what meaning it brings to all of us who

have enjoyed the benefits of education. How simple it is when you

finally understand where the money comes from. And those young adults

did.

The same applies to the students at BCIT. This very simple bill here

doesn't look very important, but it is significant, because the

amalgamation of these two great institutions will, in my view, do some

of the things that ought to be done. For example, if we can spend a

little more money in the classrooms and in the training centres than on

administration, then I think we will be doing our job correctly.

My colleague the member for New Westminster said just a minute ago

that we're waving red flags at the students and the teachers and

faculty at these institutions, and I disagree. I seem to have a higher

regard for the ability of our instructors in all education activities

and facilities than they do, and it strikes me that by far the majority

of the teachers in the system are more interested in teaching than in

marching around. It seems to be only the radical few who are prepared

to go on and on at length about their real or imagined — and mainly

imagined — grievances. The teachers just want to teach. The day before

the

article about increments came out in the Vancouver Sun the other day, one of my teachers said simply that there was no way they were going to withdraw

[ Page

7119 ]

their extracurricular activity work; they were going to stay with

it. And that, I think, is a fundamental thought process that goes

through BCIT, PVI, Camosun College and all the colleges and institutes,

incidentally, which this and past Social Credit governments have built.

My colleague the parliamentary secretary to the minister pointed out

so clearly the advantages and the opportunities and the history and the

programs and said education will lead us into new territory. And that's

absolutely true.

MR. REID: That's leadership.

MR. R. FRASER: And that's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the president of our own Young Socreds was a very successful graduate of that very same school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Works at Discovery Park.

MR. R. FRASER: Works at Discovery Park. He's taken the

opportunity he had and built on it. It's like everything that this

government does, Mr. Speaker. We plant the seed, put a little water on

it, and it grows. And when you get right down to the basics, you find

that it will work if you just give it a chance. But so often we hear

people saying: "The line says we go here and therefore if we put the

line there then we can't do this, and we can't do something else." And

the objections that are raised strike me as being frivolous at best,

because what you have to do, when you have a system like we have, is

not to object when you think you see a problem, but to try to find a

way to make the educational system work. That's what the students are

doing, and that's what the faculty is doing.

Now whether or not we have a staff member on the board doesn't

strike me as being particularly important. I would think it would be

more significant to have board meetings open to the public than to have

one token staff member on the board — or two or three for that matter.

And in everything that I've done with respect to education I've tried

to make it into a public opportunity for everyone, so that if you have

a specific interest in any subject at BCIT or PVI, you would simply ask

the board for an opportunity to appear, and, in my view, it should be

granted. If it was denied, then presumably the grounds would be

reasonable. But there are other opportunities to make your problems

with BCIT or your thought processes or whatever known to people. It's

not that hard.

So I would like our friends in the opposition to think a bit more

positively about the educational opportunities we have in the province,

for they are in fact limitless. In every situation we have students who

come here from overseas, whom we welcome because we wish everyone in

the world to know how good we have it here — we want them to take our

thinking back to their countries and to help their people get ahead in

the world, as it is the right of every man to try, and in fact it is

the will of every man — man and woman, if you let me use the common

word — to improve himself or herself constantly.

[4:15]

Education, of course, is an ongoing, lifetime opportunity that we all have.

The formal setting will end in the early years of our life — the BCIT setting

or the former PVI setting or any other college setting; university, high school,

whatever. The formal setting will go, but if we've done our work correctly,

we will not have taught the students how to be machine operators; we will have

taught the students how to think about how the machine works and the principles

behind the operation of that equipment, or: "How can I use that principle

to build something and to give something back to society in the way that I have

received it myself? How can I pay the taxes that will help some other student,

or a lot of other students, get to go to these educational opportunities that

are presented to us in abundance in this province?"

I had the great opportunity recently to accept an invitation from

Dr. Strangway, who was introduced here earlier today, to visit the

university campus out there. While we hear little rumours now and then

that they're not always completely happy, the fact of the matter is

that I was impressed, and so were all my colleagues, with the

opportunities out there and how they are transferring students with

certain extra requirements from time to time into the universities from

all the colleges and institutes in the province. This is very

important, because you may just find that every student hasn't been

completely sure of where he wanted to go when he started in the

institutes or colleges. Instead of being a technician, maybe he wanted

to be an engineer; instead of being an engineer, maybe he wanted to be

a technician.

You have to provide these transfer routes so that students who don't

always get it right — and no one ever does get it all right; none of us

gets everything right all the time.... If they want to go back and

regroup and come out another way, there will be a mechanism for them to

take hold of that opportunity. I like to think of everything as being

an opportunity, and with students, particularly in this post-secondary

area of education, it's very much like nature. We all know that if you

cut a butterfly out of a cocoon too soon, the butterfly dies; it needs

the struggle. There's every reason to encourage our students to work

hard and to struggle with things they don't understand on their own

time, to get some help from their teachers and associates and

colleagues and friends when they can't do it on their own.

What we must do, in the main, is teach the students how to think,

and with BCIT, in a practical way teach them how to make things work,

how to fix gear, how to do good work in construction, how to use CADCAM

or the high-tech drafting equipment that they have there. In fact, when

I was at the week honouring the colleges and institutes recently at

VCC, it was significant that ten to a dozen companies were being

honoured by the college system for their contribution to the facility

and to the students — great B.C. companies like Finning Tractor, Cullen

Diesel, MacDonald Dettwiler, H.A. Simons and all those great companies

who have given of themselves, their time, their money, their management

talent and their technical talent to help the students get through the

system, to help them work through the system.

As I said, if we can find any way at all to put more money into the

classroom and less money into the administration, and get a beneficial

result in the community, then I think we should do it. That is the

essence of this bill. This fabulous BCIT; this huge organization with

thousands of teachers, thousands of students, lots and lots of building

space, labs that are the envy of almost everybody in the province who

has any knowledge of labs whatsoever.... It's absolutely stunning.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the world.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, all the world is probably right. Anybody

who has ever been outside of this country, say to some of the western

nations, who does not have an appreciation of the opportunities that

our students have here simply

[ Page 7120 ]

has not gone in these other places with his or her eyes open. It is

magical, the opportunities, and there are many times when I wish those

who protest — and protest too much, in my view — would have a look at

what other people have compared to what we have here for them, and what

opportunities they have for themselves.

We simply don't appreciate often enough not only the things we have

in education but even the glorious place we live in, where there are no

guns in the streets and where airplanes aren't being blown out of the

sky or off the ground. We simply have things too close to our faces

with respect to every single opportunity we have in the province, and

BCIT is no exception — no exception whatsoever. It is so easy for me to

support this bill and, in fact, all the bills that come forward. But

this one I like particularly because of my special interest in

education, and I won't bother going into the fact that I have children

in the system right now who will one day be going to a BCIT or to

university or whatever.

Be it their own choice, I'm glad for them that they are in the

public education system. I'm glad for them that they will have the

chance that was not available to the thousands and thousands of other

students who went before them, who either went from high school to

university or went from high school to a job. There was never the step

past grade 12 for them to get that extra little help, that extra bit of

education that would make it possible for them not only to get a job

but to create a job for themselves and, very likely, jobs for other

people.

We need those taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, because there is no other way

to finance public education than through a general tax. You know, we

hear very often about the fact that we should take education off the

property tax rolls and that sort of thing, which, of course, is very

nice when times are tough. Let's put it on the income tax bill, say

many. But the fact of the matter is that the sharp valleys and

mountains you would go through if you did that would be so stunning

that the education system would be in a shambles from one decade to the

next, or even in one four- or five-year period. You have to have a

constant base, and while it may not seem fair to everybody, the fact

is.... I remember a columnist in one of the local papers talking

about changing the system. In fact, the very day the colleges and

institutes were celebrating their twentieth anniversary he was going on

about the death-knell of the system. The people I talked to who run the

colleges were disturbed, upset, annoyed, frustrated that it seemed to

be more of a political opportunity for him than an educational

experience for the readers. It did not help. Detracting is no good.

We're talking about how to make this system work.

A very famous senator by the name of Herman Talmadge, who at one

time was the Governor of the state of Georgia, when asked about the

American system, "Why isn't social security working?" said: "Well, even

as a farm boy in Georgia I knew we had to have more people pulling on

the wagon than riding on it." It doesn't take a genius to figure that

out. It's the same with education. You're not supposed to go out and

always say: "Somebody owes me a job." You're supposed to go out and

say: "I can make a job if I can't find a job, and I can create a job

for somebody else." That's what we're doing. I have no doubt about the

fact that our educational system will provide that kind of impetus for

our students.

I am very pleased to learn that more and more people in the business

community are getting involved in educational circles. As I spoke of

earlier, the MacDonald Dettwilers, the H. A. Simonses, the Cullen

Diesels and Firming Tractors and all the other companies who are

putting their time and talent and management ability and thought

processes into education so that the students, the young adults will

understand.... Comprehension is everything, and without that it's

meaningless. The days of not too long ago when you used to go to school

and just take whatever class you wanted and in whatever order you

wanted it.... That was very much in vogue and everybody thought it was

just terrific. Well, the fact of the matter is that in most things in

the world there is an order to things. It is very difficult to take

French 4 if you haven't had French 1, 2 and 3. Even if the students

don't care for it very much, sometimes the discipline they get from

doing things in order is good for their thought processes. There are

logical sequences that we must follow. You've got to start at the

beginning and go through to the end, don't you?

If we can continue to expand the opportunities in education, even in

K-12, where you have learning enrichment for the bright kids, learning

assistance for the kids who need a little help, the special programs

such as the one that this government put in when the Vietnamese

refugees came in a stunning response to a dramatic need....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: If you're talking about ESL, as my colleague

just was, there are many more dollars than that, and they're all in the

city of Vancouver, which I am very pleased to represent.

No, we have a system here that's going to work in spite of those few

people who object, in spite of those few who get a little cranky, in

spite of the few students who can't make it and who maybe shouldn't be

there. Education doesn't work for everybody, but those who can make use

of it and who are thinking about it would welcome the visit of any MLA,

as an educational opportunity, to any campus.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The president-designate of UBC, who was here this afternoon and who

kindly invited us out to his institution, was embarrassed when a bunch

of students demonstrated against the visiting MLAs. It was outrageous

behaviour; they totally occupied the foyer of the faculty club. The

members couldn't get in or out — yelling and screaming, completely

unconscionable behaviour. It turned out that they weren't from UBC.

There were two or three dozen students making all this fuss, and about

25,000 other students at UBC were working. You couldn't even hear the

president speak. It was a shameful display, obviously motivated by

something other than their ideals of higher education. It is hard to

achieve the desired result with that kind of exposure. If you didn't

know there were 26,000 students working you might be upset with the two

or three dozen that make all this fuss, but they can be dismissed for

what they are. I suppose we will have to accept the fact, as many of us

do, that some of the students will be disruptive no matter what. I can

recall the stunts that some PVI and BCIT students got into, which were

positive and fun; no damage or harm was done, no reputations were

ruined.

That's the kind of thought process we want to come out of these good

schools: the positive "I can do it" syndrome. The students will come

out and say: "I have finished my formal

[ Page

7121 ]

educational opportunity. I now start the educational opportunity of

my lifetime, which is ongoing and upgrading education here in the

province of British Columbia."

MR. REID: Tell it like it is!

MR. R. FRASER: I really do love the subject of education.

It's probably a very lucky thing that I have this opportunity in the

city to visit so many great schools. It's just unbelievable, the great

schools we have there, and the wonderful experiences I've been able to

share with our leaders in education, and the processes they all have.

Every individual man....

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: You want more? You want good stuff? Listen, I could go on for days on education; no doubt about it.

[4:30]

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Am I the designated speaker here? Do we have that anymore?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on Bill 72, and ... remarks appropriate to the bill.

MR. R. FRASER: I never like to inflame people when I speak. I'm not the kind of guy that would....

AN HON. MEMBER: You couldn't tell by this speech.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right; you could never tell that I don't like to inflame people.

I just want them to think, for once, what the object of all this is:

to put it into the classroom and make the kids think. Give them at

least a chance. I guess you can't make them think, but you can

certainly try. With some of them it is actually more difficult than

with others. I heard a story recently about a bunch of parents going to

a high school meeting — you know, parents meet the teacher. One person

got up and said: "I want to explain that when kids turn about 14, 15,

something happens to them, and it's not just the biological change.

Their brains go to mush and you would hardly believe they could learn

anything. We have to deal with them until they are about 18, when

magically the brain comes back, the mush goes away and the kids are

okay. They can do it."

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: An opportunity for our young friend here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean there's still hope for some people?

MR. R. FRASER: You're not old enough; your brains won't go to mush just yet.

When I was just a young lad — which wasn't that long ago, in fact — the

thought of people actually going to the moon was unheard of. That was absolutely

unbelievable. Now, with institutions like BCIT, our young students will be going

into space-age technology, space-age equipment, space-age philosophy. Mr. Speaker,

these bills are so easy to support when you think of things as opportunities.

I could go on about this one. My friend the minister can hardly wait

to have his turn. I actually have been up to Prince George and the

school in your riding, Mr. Minister, in New Caledonia — and a very good

school. We spoke to the people on the sidewalk and in the building, and

visited the facility there.

Education is not the four walls that many people think it is. It's

not the brick and mortar; the mind is where it's at. That's the

critical thing: how do we get people to the point where they can solve

some of their own problems and put something back into the system?

Absolutely imperative. Some people never learn that. Some people always

ask; they will never do, they will never help. We can afford to help

some people in that condition, but the majority of us have to put

something back into the system, and the educational facility is how we

are going to make it easier for people to do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite clearly that I intend to support this bill.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister could clarify for me

whether this bill, in amalgamating the Pacific Vocational Institute and

the British Columbia Institute of Technology, sees them as the

continuation of one institute rather than something new which is

beginning. The reason I'm asking that is because there is some concern

among the employees as to whether there's going to be continuity in

that area and their rights and benefits are going to be carried on, or

whether in fact what we're dealing with here is a brand-new institution

for employment purposes.

I also want to repeat one question that was raised by my colleague

from Burnaby North. The reason I am participating specifically in this

discussion is to raise questions on behalf of my constituents who

happen to work at PVI/BCIT. The statement was made by the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) to the effect that there would be no

labour relations implications whatsoever in this new bill. Can the

minister, in closing debate or in continuing the filibuster on this

bill which his colleagues seem to be involved in, say whether the old

question about staff who are moved from one institute to the other and

are fighting to retain their banked sick leave benefits...? Will

this be honoured?

To give an example, 18 PVI staff went to the Vancouver vocational

institute and 12 PVI staff to Douglas College. Apparently some or all

of these staff are in the process of losing their banked sick leave

benefits. This is a dispute that has been outstanding, I understand,

for nearly two years. Is it going to be resolved in the best interests

of the people whose jobs are affected? I recognize the importance of

saving money, Mr. Speaker, but I also recognize the importance of

people's jobs. We don't want any more jobs to be lost in this province.

We've already broken all of the rules, all of the goals. We are now

second only to Newfoundland in terms of level of unemployment, and any

legislation debated at this time, or introduced by the government at

this time, should be geared towards creating jobs, not eliminating jobs.

I think the labour relations aspect of this bill is very important.

The minister has to assure us that no jobs are going to be lost as a

result of this legislation, nor any benefits lost to the staff who are

going to be moving from one place to another. The question about

continuity is one they are very

[ Page 7122 ]

concerned about, and I wonder whether the minister would deal with that.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to get up and

speak on Bill 72, if only because I've been listening to some of the

comments made by members on both sides of the House. I've had a chance

to visit both of the institutions a number of times, and also had the

opportunity and pleasure in the past to go out to the BCIT broadcasting

section and work with some of their graduates when I was in the radio

business. Over the years I've had a couple of sons who've done some

attending at BCIT. In fact, right now my second son's fiancee is

attending there and doing extremely well, and has nothing but fine

things to say about the institution.

So I wanted to get up and say a few words, and also to read into the

record an

article written by the PVI and BCIT people, called a souvenir

issue — just parts of it; obviously not the whole newspaper — to show

that side of the story. We get so many sides of the story when we are

in this chamber, because everybody has certain questions to ask. The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds was just up talking about some issues that

concern her, and I'm sure they're concerns she wants answered. Other

members have things they would like answered. I think it's a very

positive thing.

I understand that the opposition is going to be voting for this

legislation, and I think that's a very positive thing. In talking to

the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in front of me, he asked

me to ask them how many they placed out of that dumb institution. He

obviously doesn't agree with his own colleagues, but I imagine he'll be

voting with them in passing this legislation.

I would like to put on record, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments

made by the people who work at and attend both institutions. It's an

article called "An Idea Whose Time has Come."

"Friday, May 31, 1985, dawned clear and cool, the cloudless

sky promising a hot early summer's day. The atmosphere inside the food training

centre was charged with anticipation as about 250 invited guests awaited an

announcement regarding the futures of the British Columbia Institute of Technology

and the Pacific Vocational Institute. Speculation about a possible amalgamation

of the two institutions had been growing since the resignations a week earlier

of BCIT president Gordon Thom and PVI president Henry Justesen, and the dissolution

a few days later of both institutes' boards.

"An expectant mood prevailed among the senior

administrators and community guests in the FTC, a facility which has

always been symbolic of cooperation between PVI and BCIT. Among those

in attendance were presidents and board members from several lower

mainland community colleges, as well as representatives of the Justice

Institute of B.C. and the B.C. Association of Colleges. Students from

PVI's food training programs prepared and served a hearty buffet-style

breakfast to the assembled crowd. An overflow group was admitted to the

banquet area on the other side of the facility. The public address

system was extended so those present could hear the speakers.

"BCIT board chairman Malcolm Wickson introduced the

Minister of Education, who made the announcement of a new, dynamic,

supertech BCIT to be formed by the merger of the existing BCIT and PVI.

According to the Minister of Education, the new institute will be a

centre of excellence for high-technology training, capable of

transforming a high school graduate into a highly competent tradesman

or technologist. Links between the trades and technology programs in

such proposed new areas as lasers and fibre optics will provide

tradespeople with bridges into technology training. The minister also

indicated that discussions are in progress with the Minister of

Universities to allow those who are interested in pursuing their

education at even higher levels to do so with a minimum of obstacles.

"Certain other program changes at the new BCIT are

foreseen. Suggested new programs include offerings in cardiac

perfusion, cardiology, nuclear magnetic resonance and positron emission

tomography. Some existing programs will be transferred to community

colleges, while others will be brought in. Food production and

agriculture from BCIT's biological sciences technology will be

transferred to Fraser Valley College. Recreation facilities management

and building service worker will move to Vancouver Community College.

PVI's adult basic education and b