1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Alcohol And Drug Commission Repeal Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2313

Mr. Howard –– 2314

Mrs. Dailly –– 2317

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2318

Division –– 2318

Institute Of Technology Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich.)

section 2 –– 2319

Mr. Rose

On the amendments to

section 2 –– 2321

Mr. Mitchell

section 2 –– 2322

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

Division

section 3 –– 2326

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 2330

Employment Development Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2330

Mr. Stupich –– 2330

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2331

Mr. Lea –– 2331

Mr. Cocke –– 2332

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2333

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie.)

section 3 –– 2333

Mr. Cocke

section 4 –– 2334

Mr. Lea

Mr. Barrett

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We will carry on with adjourned debate on Bill 8.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a few remarks that I want to make

about this bill. It seems that this is one of the last creatures of the

New Democratic Party term of office that this government is now about

to wipe out. It seems to be the style of this government that anything

that was started during the NDP years is something they want to get rid

of now, whether it's good or bad. I note that the Provincial Secretary

is applauding on that, which would indicate that he agrees that this is

the modus operandi of the government. They are on a course of wiping

out anything that savours of any projects that were introduced by the

good government of the 1972-75 era.

I've been looking at the act that we are about to get rid of. It is

interesting to note that the act was set up to do a very specific job.

It was to be administered by the Minister of Health, but it set up a

commission that had the ability and power to take on various employees

to deal with drug and alcohol abuse — something that was much needed

and still much needed. Under

section 10 of the existing legislation, it

says:

"The Commission may, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, (

a) operate programs, enter into

agreements with, or provide financial or other assistance to any

ministry of government, hospital, agency, university or person to

operate programs for studying, researching, diagnosing, treating,

rehabilitating, counselling, following up, caring or providing other

service for alcoholics or drug users."

That's a pretty broad spectrum, and we're wiping that out with this

bill. We're doing away with those types of programs as enunciated in

section 12 of the act.

They were also empowered to: "…conduct, or arrange and fund,

programs for dissemination of information about alcoholism and drug

abuse." Why wipe out a commission that is empowered…?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we have some courtesy? The

Member for Cowichan-Malahat is taking her place in the debate and

should be given every opportunity to say what she has to say

uninterrupted.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that very much. The roar was a little above the usual in this place, I must agree.

The size of the problem that we're talking about is interesting. More than

a half a billion dollars worth of liquor is consumed each year in British Columbia.

That's $100 or more for every man, woman and child. A half-billion dollar

industry is what we're talking about. What are the results of the consumption?

Does it relate just to the Ministry of Health? The minister has indicated that

this is not a restraint measure, because he indicated when he introduced the

bill that it would be a very minor saving but that he was going to bring it

all in under the Ministry of Health. Can the Ministry of Health really deal

with the problem that is as far ranging as the kinds of things that are enunciated

in the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act, the kind of programs that that commission

was involved in? It relates to far more than health. It relates to many ministries

and their responsibilities. Certainly it relates to Human Resources. It relates

to the Attorney-General. It relates very much to Transportation and to ICBC.

It relates to many aspects of government. It is much too broad a spectrum to

attempt to cover by one ministry.

I didn't mention education, but you know it is estimated that 70

percent of high school students in North America are into alcohol, and

I would suggest that it is higher than that in B.C. Certainly B.C. is

no exception, because here in B.C. our alcohol consumption is the

highest per capita of any province in Canada. From a health point of

view, surely there are health aspects in this. We are having more

infants born with physical and mental handicaps as a result of mothers

being alcoholics or consuming alcohol during pregnancy. One out of

every five adults who applies for a disability pension can trace the

cause of the breakdown in health to alcohol. These are startling

statistics, and we're disbanding the commission that is charged with

the educational and treatment aspects, the whole broad field of dealing

with it. We're getting rid of it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Traffic accidents. How many accidents in B.C. can be traced to

alcohol? I think you will find that in a very high percentage of

serious accidents, fatal accidents, alcohol is the real cause. In the

United States 26,000 deaths per year are traceable to alcohol-related

car accidents, and that's more than all the U.S. losses in the whole

Vietnam war. It's been estimated that there are perhaps as many as

200,000 problem drinkers in British Columbia. As I mentioned, it's the

greatest alcohol consumption in Canada, and when you have that amount

of consumption you're bound to have a higher degree of alcoholism.

One of the problems that really concerns me is the native Indian

population. Under the commission we have had native Indian counsellors

to deal with native Indian problems. In 1982-83 the statistics show

that of all the cases handled by the counsellors, 63 percent were

alcohol related: that compares with 40 percent in the previous year,

1981-82. That is a 50 percent increase, and better.

If there was ever a time when we should be continuing with treatment

and education, keeping these counsellors in place.... In my own

community of Cowichan, the government counsellors, in conjunction with

many of the employers there, have been able to contribute very greatly,

helping some of the people who have really been suffering from severe

alcohol abuse to rehabilitate themselves. That's the purpose, isn't it?

If we don't do this.... Going back to the economic reasons, the

minister said it's a minor saving. It's a much greater saving if we can

treat and educate our young people so they will not abuse alcohol. If

we can rehabilitate people and keep them out of the hospital with

alcohol-related diseases, the economic cost is so far reduced that the

minor savings the minister is talking about are little or nothing

compared to the kind of savings we could realize if in fact we carried

out the kind of educational, counselling and self-help programs that we

now have in effect under the commission. They should have been much

more extensive, much more advanced.

[ Page 2314 ]

[8:15]

When this government first took office, there was a lot of

curtailment of those programs, but then they were reinstated and we did

have an extension of that service. It was recognized as a valuable

service, so why cut it out now? Surely the government should recognize

that in times of economic stress and difficulties there is a tendency

for people to turn to alcohol. That's historic. If ever there was a

time when we should be offering assistance to these people who are

finding themselves without jobs, who are on UIC and social assistance

because of the greater occurrence of unemployment.... These people may

well need — do need — the kind of assistance that was offered by the

counselling service under the Alcohol and Drug Commission — much more

now when times are stressful. It's short-sighted economy, even if the

economy were the reason, even if restraint were the reason. As I

understood the minister, he indicated that it was a very minor saving,

that that wasn't really the reason. Why wipe out this service? Why wipe

out these counsellors?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) talks about the detox

centre and some things like that, but how can those broad community

programs be put in place under one ministry's centralized control?

Those are community-based programs that have a much broader base than

just the Ministry of Health. I'm thinking, for example, of a high

school play, written and produced by the students of the Chemainus high

school: "Every Mother's Son." That was those children's presentation,

very factual, very realistic, of drinking driving and its very dire

effects. Those are the kinds of programs that have come into being as a

result of the local counsellors under the Drug and Alcohol Commission.

I'm sure those children, those high school children — grades 10, 11 and

12 — who were involved in presenting that dramatic production....

Amateur, it is true, but they made that case so clearly to all who

attended, and to themselves, that I believe each one of those young

people in that high school recognized full well the importance of not

mixing driving and drinking. If that has saved one young life, it was a

worthwhile effort. That kind of program can only take place when you

have community involvement and the counsellors, when you have that

broad spectrum that goes far beyond the Ministry of Health and takes in

Education, Highways — the RCMP were involved in that production. That

kind of broad base is really where we need to begin if we're going to

meet and deal with the horrendous problem that alcohol is putting

before our province and our people.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again the noise level is

quite distracting. If members wish to discuss, perhaps they can meet

somewhere other than here.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we seem to be back to a typical evening

session, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if we've been having cornflakes for

dinner or what's happened, but we're very noisy tonight.

I have covered the points that I wanted to raise. I am really

concerned about the withdrawal of this service at this particular time,

when we are in an economic downturn and when people are trying to live

on reduced or very low incomes. When stress is as great as it is —

people looking and not able to find jobs — the tendency is to turn to

alcohol. We need that counselling service more than ever. Every

statistic will tell you that that is what happens in an economic

downturn, I'm shocked that this government would decide this at this

point in time. After more or less abandoning the Drug and Alcohol

Commission in the initial stages, and then having decided that it was a

good thing and providing greater funds and more continuation than

intended when it was first set up, now suddenly to wipe it out doesn't

make any sense at all. I wonder if in fact the government is more

concerned about the profits it makes from liquor than about doing

anything to ensure that our health and lives are not endangered by

overconsumption of that beverage. I am very concerned about that, and

certainly cannot support a bill that wipes out this commission.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it affords us an opportunity to make

some general comments about a subject that has been dealt with from

time to time in this chamber, but not very effectively in terms of the

resulting benefit that should come to people in society who for one

reason or another engage in abuse of alcohol or drugs. In my view there

is too much pushing, promoting and advertising of booze in this nation,

and in this province. The government itself is involved in the

promotional aspect of liquor.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've read all 47

words of this bill, and I see absolutely nothing in it that advocates

that we should be debating the advertising or merchandising of alcohol.

In the explanatory note — and there's only one explanatory note — it

says quite explicitly: "The purpose of this bill is to dissolve the

Alcohol and Drug Commission." I would ask that you call that member to

order and insist that his debate be in regard to this particular bill.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I was going to point out

that the very moment we get onto a serious social problem in here, some

Socred wants to stop the debate. Let me point out to you, Mr.

Speaker....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the only social problem is the one on its feet over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Why don't you get some sleep, Jack?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Omineca will withdraw that.

MR. KEMPF: I'll certainly withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, but I

would ask that you insist that that member on his feet debate this bill

or I'll be on my feet again.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Skeena

to come to order as well. The member for Omineca has, I guess, raised

an operative point. However, it's early in the member for Skeena's

debate and one really cannot ascertain at which point he is at,

although I think all members of the assembly would concur that remarks

with respect to advertising and distribution would be better canvassed

under the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

and not under a bill such as this proposed by the

[ Page

2315 ]

Minister of Health. I'm sure the member for Skeena can relate his remarks

specifically to this bill.

MR. HOWARD: If I could deal with the point of order. First,

the member for Omineca is wrong, as he is on so many occasions. This

bill is not, as the explanatory note says, to dissolve the Alcohol and

Drug Commission. This bill, if you look at

section 1 — and there are

only two sections of it — is to repeal the Alcohol and Drug Commission

Act. Because it's to repeal the act we're entitled to discuss what it

is seeking to repeal. In the act it talks about an alcoholic, about

alcoholism and what it means, about drug abuse, what is a drug abuser,

the commission being an agent of the Crown, its purpose, managers,

programs and everything else. That's why I wanted to start off dealing

with the subject matter in the act which we are seeking to repeal. The

government is just as guilty as anybody else in pushing booze in this

province and causing the misery for it.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply draw briefly to the attention of the House a couple

of family magazines in Canada: Maclean's , a good magazine; Saturday Night

— he doesn't care much for Saturday Night . Let's just skip through the

slick advertising and see what is being pushed, see what we in society are being

attracted to use. Here's Metaxa, a Greek drink. Down below it doesn't

talk about the misery that's caused, it doesn't talk about the family

abuse; it doesn't talk about alcoholism; it doesn't talk about family

break-up, child beating, wife or husband beating — and it works both ways where

alcohol is a problem in the family. It talks about the beauty of a Greek drink

called Metaxa. It also says that if you want to know anything more about it...

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: …write to Schenley's for a free copy of their recipe booklet. Now that promotes....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I see absolutely no reason to allow

the kind of debate that's going on now in this House. I see no way that

that member can suggest that he can regurgitate the entire Drug and

Alcohol Commission Act in debating Bill 8. Bill 8 is very specific. All

it does is repeal the Drug and Alcohol Commission.

MR. HOWARD: Act.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, to debate anything else is a gross abuse of this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member for Skeena has indicated that he's relating his remarks to the act that we are repealing.

MR. HOWARD: And why it shouldn't be repealed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe he in fact has quoted from that act.

MR. HOWARD: It says in here: "Alcoholism is any dependent

condition produced by the action of alcohol upon the human system." I'm

suggesting to you that the advertising that goes on in family magazines

in this nation promotes alcoholism. That's why we shouldn't repeal this

act; we should be fighting alcoholism.

Here I draw your attention to another one. This is gin. It doesn't

talk about misery or what happens if you drink too much gin, or what

occurs the following morning, so I'm told, if one imbibes too much gin,

or anything else that has alcohol in it. But they're selling here:

"Beefeater, the Spirit of England." It's not the B.C. spirit, although

I can understand that as well. Here's another one: "Strike it Rich with

Rum" — golden colour, beautiful pictures, soft tones, a hand with a

glass in it with something in the glass.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm quite serious about this, Mr. Speaker. The

members opposite may giggle if they like, but this is a very serious

social problem we've got in this province. Even Johnny Walker Black

Label, which I understand some members of this House enjoy the flavour

of — and I'm one of them — says: "No matter how you give Johnny Walker

Black, it's impressive." I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you drink enough

of it you'll find out how damned impressive it is the next day; or if

you end up in a condition of squabbling in your family, perhaps your

wife or husband will let you know what "impressive" means and try to

get the message across. It goes on and on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if we are really debating a bill or trying to hear what problems

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has the next morning after drinking

various brands of booze. I wonder if you could direct him to the bill

under debate now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. The member for Skeena will....

MR. HOWARD: Please don't ask him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, there's nothing to withdraw. If we

can relate our remarks to the bill — and I'm sure the member for Skeena

can do that.... The member is also reminded that there is a prohibition

in our parliament about exhibits or displays in the House. If the

member can simply refer to a printed matter, as opposed to displaying

it to the parliament, we will all be well served.

[8:30]

MR. HOWARD: Here's a final one. It says: "Reward Yourself

With Premium." What I'm trying to get across, Mr. Speaker, is that the

liquor industry is not selling liquor; they're supposedly selling

pleasure — sexual acceptance. Look at some of the pictures and

references. They're selling good times. They're selling delightful,

happy, contented moments. They're selling misery, and they're making a

fortune out of it. By virtue of repealing the Alcohol and Drug

Commission Act, we are now in the process of wiping out the Alcohol and

Drug Commission when that Alcohol and Drug Commission could probably do

some good to counter the injurious effects of that kind of advertising.

[ Page 2316 ]

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)....

Oh, yes, he's here. We had a question a while ago about opening beer

parlours and the like on Sundays. The minister sent a questionnaire to

his riding, which said: "What do you think about this idea?" I don't

know what response he got. "Do you like booze on Sundays?" I'll venture

a wager with the minister that the response he got said no, it was not

favourably accepted; I'll bet that's the response he got, because if

he'd got a favourable response he'd have been doing it. I'll just make

that slight wager with the minister that he got the response that said

no; maybe 60 percent said: "No, we don't want to open beer parlours on

Sunday." The point is, a questionnaire was sent out about it. If the

response had been any closer, maybe we would have been going in that

direction and further promoting the sale of beer.

There is one group — and one group only — in society that has had

any valuable, helpful effect with respect to those individuals who are

alcoholics.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Salvation Army.

MR. HOWARD: No, not the Salvation Army. AA — Alcoholics

Anonymous, many of whom work with and through the Salvation Army, yes.

But as a distinct group, it's Alcoholics Anonymous. The reason they're

successful is something we should know in our own minds, beyond a

shadow of a doubt. Some psychologists worked it out, calling it the

in-group theory. The reason AA is successful is because it comprises

members who identify themselves as alcoholics, who admit to themselves

that they can't handle booze, that it handles them. So they say: "I'm

off, on a day-to-day basis; not forever, just for today." They make

that admission to themselves. Because they are able to do that, they

are able to go to people who are alcoholics and get the message across

that here is somebody who has been through the mill.

All of us tend to take advice from those who are in a similar

situation, no matter what it is. Members of school boards tend to take

advice from members of other school boards, because they've worked in

school boards, know how they function, and so on. If you get advice

from the outside, from someone who may not have had the experience or

knowledge about how a school board operates, it's a little testy.

That's precisely the situation with alcoholics.

I don't know what numbers we employ in the treatment of alcoholics

and drug addicts — people who are psychiatrists or psychologists. To

me, that's a waste of money and time. Those professional psychiatrists

and psychologists, whether operating in the field, dealing with

alcoholics, drug addicts or whatever else, are game players; the game

is more important than what is affecting the individual. If the

government wanted to fire somebody, or lay people off, as being

superfluous, it could sure start with the psychiatrists and

psychologists on its payroll. I make that as a serious suggestion,

insofar as their effectiveness is concerned in dealing with social

problems. Human Resources street workers, social workers, are far more

valuable than psychiatrists and psychologists in dealing with human

problems.

If we were to maintain the Alcohol and Drug Commission as a vehicle,

a separately identifiable element, as an agent of government to deal

with alcohol and drug abuse, alcoholics and drug addicts, as distinct

from merging in all in the Ministry of Health — where, quite frankly, I

think it will get lost.... It becomes more of a game, more a matter of

press release, more a matter of so-called social scientists trying to

function in an area where they are not very effective.

Just the other day, apropos of that, the first news releases about

alcohol and drug abuse that I've seen for some period of time arrived

just a few days ago. They were both from the same person, the director

of the alcohol and drug programs within the Ministry of Health. Both

were dated the same day, and both dealt with alcoholism and drug abuse

and, while using different words, said the same thing. I wonder why we

have suddenly got to turn out two press releases that say the same

thing in different words and on the same day. Was that perhaps part of

the publicity program to indicate to the general public that something

worthwhile is happening in the Ministry of Health and that therefore we

don't need the Alcohol and Drug Commission? I don't know, but I know

these press releases suddenly appeared. I'll read just briefly from the

first one, which very clearly identifies what I have been saying. The

first press release says — right from the opening sentence: "The

Alcoholics Anonymous model of self-help groups is proving to be

increasingly valuable in the recovery of special groups of alcoholics

and drug users." That has been known for donkey's years. Why suddenly

announce what has been evident for so long. This is the other press

release — with all respect to Dr. Stroh, who issued it; maybe he didn't

write it; maybe somebody else did; maybe the public relations branch or

something wrote it; information services might have written it. In the

second press release he said: "In fact, as both Alcoholics Anonymous

and Narcotics Anonymous groups agree, the alcoholic or drug addict

stays off drugs and alcohol one day at a time" — putting in the fact

that both of those groups agree. What he should be saying is: "I, Dr.

Stroh, director of alcohol and drug programs, agree with what

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous have been saying for

years. He should be the one who is agreeing; the minister should be the

one who is agreeing, not put it on the other foot as if, suddenly, AA

and NA have come to the conclusion that the Ministry of Health has

discovered a new truth out there.

They were the ones to perceive this and develop it in the first

instance. We're not going to deal effectively with alcohol abuse and

drug abuse unless we're serious about it. We're not going to deal

effectively with it unless we recognize some simple, uncomplicated

truths. First, the person who is an alcoholic — heroin addicts are in a

little bit different category; there are other factors involved —

himself or herself, as the case might be, has to admit to himself that

he has a problem; that he cannot handle alcohol; that alcohol controls

him, rather than the other way around. That has to be the first

admission. The best way for that admission to come is through

conversation and discussion and with help from people who have been

through the mill, who identify themselves as alcoholics; that's the

best way it can come — the only effective way it can happen.

Almost any heroin addict who faces the truth about heroin addiction

will tell you that — and they're exaggerating a bit.... I know people

who have been heroin addicts but no longer use heroin, and have moved

out of that stream. The general declaration from drug addicts is that

there are two cures: one is an overdose; the other is what they call

the Chinese cure, harkening back to the time when China was virtually

forced, through the port of Hong Kong, to take

part in the movement of

opium out of other southeast parts of the world; at a certain point in

time the Chinese government determined that opium addicts would be

faced with the death

[ Page 2317 ]

penalty, and they put it into effect. It very

quickly cleared up that problem, so they claim. Most heroin addicts

will say that the only solution is either the Chinese cure or an

overdose. By saying that, they're admitting their own inability to

handle drugs, to face up to themselves about their own difficulties

with some rational sense of introspection and make a determination

about their weakness.

I submit that we are not going to move effectively or helpfully in

that area by merging the functions of a separate agent of government,

the Alcohol and Drug Commission — wiping out the act — with the

Ministry of Health. It will tend to get lost in the whole milieu of

Health ministry activities and will be even less effective than now, in

trying to deal with and help thousands and thousands of people who, for

one reason or another — whether by virtue of advertising or not — are

unable to cope with alcohol and drugs in any sensible and reasonable

way.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to wind up the debate on the Alcohol

and Drug Commission Repeal Act for the official opposition, Mr.

Speaker, surely it is almost impossible to talk about the repeal of the

Alcohol and Drug Commission without referring to some of the tremendous

problems faced by people who use alcohol and drugs to excess. Our main

concern with the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug Commission is that

whether or not it was functioning correctly or properly, or whether or

not it was a positive force, is irrelevant now, because it's going. The

question is: with what is the government replacing it? When I looked

over the Health estimates for the whole area of alcohol and drugs, we

find a cutback in the estimates for this year. I have to accuse the

Social Credit government of not being responsible whatsoever in caring

about education in the prevention of alcoholism in our province. If

they were concerned, there is no way their obsession with "restraint" —

their idea of restraint varies greatly from that of many others — would

include cutting back in the vital area of education and prevention of

the use of alcohol and drugs.

[8:45]

It's almost unbelievable that this government, which estimates that

it will make more than $355 million this year in profits from the sale

of alcohol, will at the same time cut back, on what is a very miserly

little budget to begin with, on the prevention.... Hopefully it will

include the education of the people of B.C. re the problems of

alcoholism. I find it unbelievable. If they are not really concerned

about the dreadful social effects of drug and alcohol abuse — I should

say "drug" abuse, because alcohol is, of course, known as one of the

more serious drugs as far as drugs go, yet most people seem to separate

it from drugs — and if they cannot see that cutting back, not taking

their full responsibility as a government in this area, is going to

cost far more to the government and the taxpayers.... I simply cannot

comprehend that they cannot see that. I don't think anyone in this room

tonight needs a lecture on the evils of the use of alcohol and drugs,

so I certainly don't intend to go into that. My other colleagues have

gone through that in a responsible and I think on the whole a

restrained way in spite of what I thought were rather ridiculous

interferences and interjections from some of the members of the Social

Credit back bench.

I would like to take the opportunity to put a couple of facts into the record

to explain why the NDP opposition is so vitally concerned with the repeal of

the Alcohol and Drug Commission, particularly when the minister in charge —

the Minister of Health — does not appear to be able to convince us or explain

to us that he is actually going to have something that will take its place and

do even more, I would hope, particularly in our province. We have the distinction,

as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, of having more than 200,000 problem drinkers.

In fact, we lead all the provinces of Canada in consumption. We have the most

deaths due to cirrhosis of the liver and we also head the list in alcohol-related

deaths. A number of the moves being made by the Social Credit government are

in my mind going to increase, not decrease, the problems in this area. I'm

sure I don't need to go through the horror stories on the effects of alcohol

and the people who become victims of the alcoholic or the drunk driver. But

I certainly intend to take my place whenever we get to the Health estimates

and I can relate it specifically to this area, because most of us have volumes

of material on this matter. I happen to think it is one of the most serious

problems that faces this government or any government today, particularly when

the B.C. government seems so obsessed with increasing their profits from liquor

that they have even increased the advertising — the time they rationalized allowing

an increase in liquor advertising with the recommendation.... They would

insist that 15 percent of all advertising by the advertising firms which are

using the electronic media would go toward alcohol and drug education programs

— alcohol particularly. Even though that was announced, I don't know where

or even if it is being done. I hope when the minister closes the debate he will

inform the House that the B.C. government is insisting.... Now that they've

given the advertising firms what they wanted — advertising on TV — I wonder

if they're also insisting on those firms putting a certain percentage of

their enormous profits into education. We talk much about what to do with the

alcoholic, but the most important thing of all is to prevent alcoholism. That

is the area where I feel the Social Credit government has been remiss. When

this bill goes through — as it no doubt will with the numbers in the House —

we hope the government will realize that if they're going to remove the

Alcohol and Drug Commission, they have a very grave responsibility to do something

about this problem which is increasing every day in our province. The effects

of alcohol and drug consumption are, as we all know, absolutely horrendous.

I would like to end tonight by emphasizing the fact that alcohol is

the most dangerous drug that was ever let loose. It is insidious in its

appeal, distressing in its hold and virtually fatal when it becomes the

master. It makes millions of dollars for producers and governments

alike, who can't seem to free themselves from it. I think the Social

Credit government, which is taking in enormous profits from alcohol,

owes it to the people of British Columbia to show that they're going to

do something about the prevention of alcoholism in this province.

I am personally very much against the fact that in the new B.C.

Place stadium the government has seen fit to allow the sale of beer. I

can't understand how sports and alcohol can go together. People go to

watch a sports game.... I've had letters from constituents who say the

game is being spoiled for them because they're surrounded by drunks.

Why did the government have to do this? People who are addicted to

smoking are beginning to get used to going to areas where they have to

sit for a couple of hours without a cigarette. Why on earth can't they

go into B.C. Place stadium — and I know you understand this, Mr.

Speaker — and sit there without alcohol for a couple of hours? I think

the government is going

[ Page 2318 ]

to be responsible for some very serious problems. There's no need for that. As I said, I happen to be speaking personally.

I think it is about time the Social Credit government stopped being

so obsessed with the profits they're making from alcohol. God knows

they need money because they've mismanaged the economy, but surely it

would be wiser to look at how to prevent alcoholism and drug abuse

through prevention and education. That is why the official opposition

completely rejects this bill, which is not showing us that the

government is serious about this terrible problem that all the citizens

of B.C. face. Eventually almost everyone is affected by it, either by

increased taxes or personally through someone they know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the

speakers this afternoon and this evening are very relevant to the

problem associated with abuse of alcohol or other drugs. I have very

little disagreement with what has been said with respect to that.

However, I would suggest that the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission will really not have the effect they have suggested. The

Alcohol and Drug Commission has, in effect, not operated for two years.

The commission itself, and the duties of the commission, have been

assumed by the Ministry of Health for the past couple of years, and the

members of the commission have acted in an advisory capacity, which

their replacements will continue to do.

The problem of addiction, be it alcohol or other drugs, is universal

and epidemic. It is probably the major social problem in our society.

The people who are associated with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and

those who work in the independent organizations that attempt to treat

people for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, or certain drug addictions, are

without end and variety. There are many people who have ideas,

attitudes and theories when it comes to assisting people with their

addictions, some of whom are successful, some who are not. The member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a

long history of working very hard with the alcoholic because of their

own philosophy, and it has some success. It was mentioned that the

Salvation Army also has some success, and indeed they have, as do other

organizations, such as the one in my own constituency, the Richmond

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Team. They have had some success. Many churches

and other organizations have also had some success.

There doesn't seem to be one single concept or theory that serves

all. The causes of alcoholism or drug addiction are so varied, and

probably so misunderstood in our society, that the attempts to resolve

those problems are going to continue to be varied. I would question

whether any government has the capacity to be able to solve the

problem. It is a problem of society, and to a very large degree it is

an attitudinal one. A society that believes there is legitimacy in the

use of drugs — alcohol or otherwise — is one which will, for many

years, be associated with the problems they bring. The people who have

been involved in the ministry in the alcohol and drug program have

worked very hard and very sincerely in trying to assist our society in

resolving some of the impact, whether it's the detox centres or some of

the individual societies that deal with counselling, analysis,

psychology and the rest. I can't dismiss the psychiatrists or the

psychologists, because in some instances they do have success. In many

instances the church has successes with people who have addiction

problems. It is almost impossible to say that one method of

rehabilitation is the only one. It works for some people but not for

others.

Similar to the member for Skeena, I know many people who are

reformed alcoholics and drug addicts, be it heroin or some of the

others. I know a person who was addicted to heroin for 14 years and

overcame his problem within a matter of minutes, and has never looked

back in 25 years — a very rare occasion, but proof that it can be done.

In his case he found religion and that resolved his problem with

heroin. Others can't do that. There are many methods which have been

attempted and tried in our society.

What we are doing by repealing the act will in no way detract from

the treatment and services offered the people in British Columbia. The

Ministry of Health and the alcohol and drug program in the ministry

will continue to attempt to do the best possible job they can. If we

have the assistance and cooperation of other segments of our society,

perhaps we can do a better job.

A final comment. I find it most disconcerting that while we

recognize the dangers of drugs of all kinds, we have many people in our

society who actively, through their own habits, lifestyle and

philosophy, promote the use of such things. I think that is abhorrent.

There has been discussion about advertising, but I would suggest that

not only advertising is part of the overall concept of acceptability,

but much else adds to that as well. Long before advertising was

permitted on the electronic media in British Columbia, we in this

province had the worst rate of alcoholism in Canada. I would suggest

that there are many other reasons for this in British Columbia than

simply electronic advertising.

With respect to the comments made by members opposite, we know it's

a big problem, but I can assure the members that the Ministry of Health

will continue to work as best they possibly can in this very serious

area. The repeal of the commission will have no diminishing effect on

what is being done in our province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading of Bill 8.

[9:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 9

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Rose

Mitchell

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

[ Page 2319 ]

Bill 8, Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that we

could say on this section, and as soon as I and my 21 colleagues have

completed our remarks on this section, we can get into it in greater

detail.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the opposition are concerned with the

representation on the board. As everyone knows, when this particular

legislation was enacted by the then Minister of Education, it was a

fully appointed board. We are well aware of that and we are prepared to

admit that most of those people have acted in a pretty professional

capacity. This isn't really what is proposed in this act. There is

nothing in here about directions to the board. Appointments to give

across-the-community input will be eliminated from the board. The

people who are going to be affected by the legislation will have no

representation on the board. The possibility of reducing the number of

people on the board from 15 to 5 is a concern to those affected. Who

are the people that will be missing in future — people from the

legislation originally proposed by the now Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon Mr. McGeer)? This is the concern that I

would like to express here tonight when we are doing the committee

stage of this clause. This clause suggests that Bill 19 is going to

remove the BClT representatives from the board, so anybody who has any

kind of personal concern and is involved in the college itself is now

suddenly going to have no say on the board. While some may argue....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I will tell you why they should. People who were

involved in an enterprise, no matter what that enterprise is, are

entitled, I believe, to give that input. I think it is very helpful. As

a matter of fact, as an ex-coal miner — a once and future coal miner —

I'm quite sure that the member from the east Kootenays (Mr. Segarty)

would believe that the board of directors of the big mining companies

could probably benefit from the insight of those people who are working

in the coal mines. I see him nodding. Unfortunately his nodding doesn't

go into Hansard , but I see him nodding and he agrees. He's

scratching his chin. He agrees that there are many sound ideas that can

come to a board of management from those people who work in that

particular enterprise.

A similar thing occurs here and I am sure if we went back and looked

at the speeches of the now Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications when he set up this kind of board.... I point out that

this has not been an indirectly elected board, such as those that are

common in the various community colleges, but it has been an appointed

board. This board involved people who were participants as well as

consumers, people who were teaching at that college, staff members of

the institute and also students. This is going to be removed and this

is one of the concerns that I want to express tonight. In addition to

shrinking the size of the board to 15, which I would think would be a

kind of a representative group, to 5, the same concerns that we have

expressed earlier about the choice of those people and whether or not

they would operate in an advocacy role, whether or not it would be

truly independent or whether or not they would be the pets of a

particular political orientation is something I think we need to

concern ourselves with. We should cherish the idea that there are

people on that board who may not have opinions on matters of policy

direction, input forces and all the rest of it and who are absolutely

congruent with those of the ministry. That is extremely important. I

don't think truth necessarily lies with the sort of monopolistic

opinion of one group of people or one political party. We are concerned

that we have not only removed by shrinking the numbers of broad

representation of people who could add to the knowledge and the

intelligence of the decision-making of that board, but we have also cut

the numbers from 15 down to 5. We have gotten rid of community

representation of a broad basis and we have instead chosen a very

select and small group. We have indicated that the input of teachers,

staff members and students are no longer welcome.

[9:15]

I don't understand why the Minister of Education has received nothing from

his back bench on the subject. Did the students or any kind of large representative

group come to the minister and ask for this stance to be taken, ask for this

change to be made? Did somebody say: "Look, these people out at BCIT are

so nutty that they have put all kinds of duplicating courses in there and, Mr.

Minister, we want you to come in as soon as you can and put in a kind of directive

that can change the courses, the content and the offerings of that school"?

If that is the case I would think the minister would be right in acting in that

direction, but if there hasn't been a request from those people involved,

then I think the minister is presumptuous to outline in a piece of legislation

what he thinks is the way that we should go to provide better service or better

training for those students attending the British Columbia Institute of Technology.

I think we have a right to know as legislators whether or not this is a result

of a request or whether this is just a matter of centralization: putting more

power in the hands of the ministry to direct and control the direction of one

of the institutions in this province. The ministry says: "This is what

we're going to do; we're going to take it over; all this pretence

of representation, democracy, broad-based support is the direction we intend

to go as a ministry." Then I think it would be important that the minister

be open and give us this information, and also tell us the other kinds of pressures

that were brought to bear upon him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, much of what the hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody is covering was raised during second

reading, and it seems to me that that was

[ Page 2320 ]

the appropriate time to discuss most of what has

been raised. I thought we were in committee and looking into the

mechanical portion of the bill before us. I could be wrong on this, but

I recall most of that debate during second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. In committee debate

must be specifically relevant to the section, and if it has been

covered, the Chair must ask the member to relate his remarks

specifically to the

section and avoid repetition.

MR. ROSE: Well, are you saying that this has been covered, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Chairman didn't say that; the minister

made that observation. I'm just relating the guidelines of committee

stage to the assembly.

MR. ROSE: I see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that

that is what the minister said, but I'm not certain that all these

concerns have actually been covered. What bothers me about the whole

thing is that the whole

section that was once

section 2 of the old act

has now been revamped and removed, even to the matter of term. We had a

term of appointees under the old act. It was a three-year term. There

were 15 appointees, usually based on suggestions coming not only from

the community and the ministry but also from the students and the

staff. But now what have we got? There is no mention of term at all.

What we have is a situation where presumably these people are appointed

at pleasure.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

further to what the minister has just stated, the member should be

directing his attention to what is in the bill. He is now discussing

the matter of term, which is not in this section, and if you allow that

line of debate, absolutely anything that is not included in this

section is open to debate on this section. I would suggest that he

confine his remarks to that which is in the section, and not those

things which he speculates could result from this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose, of course, of our rules in

committee stage is to avoid repetition and to make debate specifically

relevant to the section, and I am sure the member can do that. It's

also, I might add, a chance to allow the minister to reply. The

committee would be well served if that was considered.

MR. ROSE: Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank

the minister. Really what I was doing was prefacing my remarks to an

amendment which I intend to move, and the amendment which I intend to

move covers the matter of term. I wish to add to the section. Now if

the Minister of Forests would be more tranquil....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, also not included in this

section is why the Titanic

sank when it struck an iceberg. By that member's line of reasoning,

that could be equally included in the line of debate as the matter of

term which is not a part of this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we can find that as a point of order yet.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, with

respect, if the minister would read the original

section that is being

repealed here, then he would understand what the member from

Coquitlam-Moody is talking about. All the things he is talking about

are implicit in that repeal. There are some additions pursuant, but the

repeal of the original

section of the act.... I can get the minister a

copy of the statutes of B.C. If he'd care to read it, he would

understand what the debate is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody was making that point.

MR. ROSE: I was attempting to, Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the Minister of Forests, who related something about the Titanic . I could even relate that to the bill if I had to; I could accuse the captain of being a Social Crediter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are straying.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to end up in the same sea as the minister.

What I was attempting to do was to say that the whole

section 2,

which we're amending here in this bill because it's an proposed

amending statute, dealt with term. This

section 2 removes term.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not keeping you up, am I? I wouldn't want to do that.

So what I'm saying is that I feel several vital sections of this

bill, which were positive things brought in by the then Minister of

Education, have now been removed, and I regret them. As a matter of

fact, I'm opposed to their removal. For that reason I propose an

amendment to add some sections after

section 2(3). I'm prepared to sign

this amendment and to deliver it to the Chair, but let me read it

first. This will give some direction to that shrunken board of

governors, now down from 15 to 5, now removed of all input from

students, community, staff or faculty. It's now completely dependent

upon political input, I assume. I am sure that a number of my friends

here, especially the members who represent Burnaby, will be delighted

to comment upon these things that I offer here as an amendment to make

this less venal, less vile, less aggressive and more representative.

A new subsection (4): "The purpose of a board is to represent the

public interest and the institute community." The reason I add that is

because there is some doubt as to, whose interest the new board should

represent. It is not for me to say that it might represent the interest

not of the consumers of this educational offering but maybe of the

ministry, or maybe some other group in society. Maybe some of the trade

unions perhaps, or the business interests, or some other group of

society. But I think that whatever the purposes of the board, the board

should be reminded that regardless of who appointed them, their

loyalties are not to a particular political party or special interest

group, be it business, labour, the community, the students or whatever,

but to the broad interests of the public and our future and the

institute community.

Section 2(1) says: "The institute, called the British Columbia

Institute of Technology, is continued with a board of governors

consisting of 5 or more members appointed by the

[ Page 2321 ]

Lieutenant Governor in Council." My new

section

2(5): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall, before exercising

powers in subsection (1), invite the present board, the faculty, the

student body and the support staff to submit names of potential

governors for consideration." This is hardly a radical suggestion. This

is what was followed in the previous act. It's not something that I

think the minister is going to choke on, because it's relatively mild,

some would even say namby-pamby. What it says is to give those people

who are constituents, who have a stake in the whole thing and are

interested in the success of this educational institution, an

opportunity to submit to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council their

preferred list of people who may share and put forward their interests,

the interest of the constituency, which is the community and the

institution. That seems reasonable to me.

This is exactly what was suggested in the first act, but this does

not bind the minister or the cabinet or the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council. It says: to invite the present board, the faculty,

the student body and the support staff to submit names of potential

governors for consideration, presumably by the person who makes the

decisions on the appointment, and presumably that's the minister. I

don't think that is a particularly radical suggestion. I think it's

reasonable and I don't think anybody can take much umbrage at it. If

the minister in all his wisdom — and I say that without any rancour or

sarcasm — feels that the names submitted are not suitable, he is under

no obligation here to accept them. I would think he would be wise to do

so, but he is under no obligation.

Finally, I would like to add a subsection (6) to this particular

section: "Each member appointed under subsection (1) " — that deals

with the appointment of the board, the shrinking of the board from 15

to 5 — "shall serve for a three-year term, and may be reappointed for a

further term of three years." This gets at what the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) was alluding to a little earlier, when he thought

I wasn't on the original act or the amendment thereto, and got

distressed and displayed some hypertension. At the moment it's at

pleasure, and presumably it could be forever — it depends on the length

of the minister's pleasure, or the Lieutenant-Governor's pleasure. So

that is what I'm suggesting.

What I'm attempting to do in this amendment is to bring some of the

democracy and representative government that existed in the old statute

into the new statute — not by demand or decree, but merely by

suggestion. To me it is a moderate approach and an eminently reasonable

one. It doesn't threaten the minister or tie his hands in any way, and

I hope he accepts it.

[9:30]

On the amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With reference to the amendments to

section 2

by the addition of subsections (4), (5) and (6), as proposed by the

hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody, I would advise the member that

subsections (4) and (6) as proposed are in order. Subsection (5) would

fail, however, as it imposes an obligation on the Crown.

MR. ROSE: I can renumber them, making (6) into (5), which

seems to be sensible in view of the ruling. I would hope the minister

has taken heed of what we once called subsection (5) and will take it

into consideration. Rather than put it in the statute, I hope he would

seek advice. I don't know if he's going to accept it, but we at least

know it is in order and debatable.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you have amendments that are in order. Would the minister kindly suggest whether or not he has any opinion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be a great service to the committee

and to all members of the committee if amendments could be put on the

order paper, or at least duplicate copies of the amendments provided

for the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, in specific response to (4),

the proposed amendment is to add: "The purpose of a board is to

represent the public interest and the institute community." It's a

provincial institution now, and that certainly represents the public

interest. Talking about the institute community, I would make specific

reference to a statement which was made by — I gave this in second

reading and perhaps the member was unavoidably absent when we did have

second reading — the present faculty representative on the board of

BCIT. This statement was given to the press shortly after the bill was

introduced to the House on July 7: "I can understand why they" —

referring to the government — "are making these changes. I assume the

idea is to remove members who might have a vested interest in

maintaining the status quo rather than being primarily concerned about

the whole institution or the education system as a whole." Mr.

Chairman, all I can do is recite again what in fact the faculty

representative on that board stated.

MS. BROWN: Uncle Tom lives.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I find that incredible, absolutely incredible. You know that, too, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Uncle Tom is not dead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will come to order. All members will come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot accept the proposed subsection

(4). I understand the middle amendment was ruled out of order by the

Chair. For the second proposed amendment I quote: "Each member

appointed under subsection (1) shall serve for a three-year terrn and

may be reappointed for a further term of three years." During second

reading we drew a parallel between Bills 19 and 20 — 20 refers to

colleges — and it was made abundantly clear at that time that the

appointments were "at pleasure." The size of the board was determined,

which is to be a minimum, and I find it very difficult, despite the

sincerity with which the amendment is put before you, Mr. Chairman, to

draw some form of differential viewpoint as between colleges and BCIT.

Interestingly enough, when the College and Institute Act came in, I

understand that there was considerable interest in putting BCIT under

that particular bill. There was considerable resistance at the time by

BCIT, and in fact it was left the way it is at the present time. There

was total voluntary compliance by BCIT with the three councils which

were eliminated under Bill 20.

1 find it somewhat difficult, and I can't accept the amendment —

item 5 — because I am not prepared to draw a distinction between

colleges and the institute. They are all serving the people of British

Columbia, and they are all

[ Page 2322 ]

fulfilling a most important function. To turn

around and give a specific term for an institute and "at pleasure" for

colleges would be a most apparent inconsistency. I can understand one

or the other questioning the decision of government. Regretfully I

cannot support either.

MR. MITCHELL: I believe the minister himself absolutely

supported the argument that the amendment was trying to establish. As

he said, there was talk of bringing BCIT under the community colleges

legislation, but government, in its wisdom, did not do that. They do

recognize that there is a difference between BCIT and the community

colleges. I believe there is a lot to be gained. I say this very

seriously as one who has worked in various groups, listening to what

the people who work in that particular industry.... BCIT is an

industry, and they do have input.... People who are appointed from

outside the institution, be they good Social Crediters or active

community workers.... The people who are actually working within that

industry — who are, you would say, on the assembly line — recognize

some of the problems, because they are dealing with the students who

come to the institution every day and who are dealing firsthand with

the businesses who.... They are there to train technocrats for the

different industries, and I think they have a closer relationship to

the needs of that institution than a lot of people who may be appointed

by order-in-council or by the ministry and who are not aware of what is

going on in the business world.

The real need is to have that input right from the institution. I

think the amendment is a valid one; it is needed if we are going to

broaded the type of training we are going to have in the institution

and the way it is delivered. I am sorry that the minister offhandedly

put it down, trying to relate it to Bill 20, when he would not combine

them under the same institutions so that they would have the same board

of governors. I think he recognized then, because he didn't combine the

two, that there is a different need in BCIT. I would like to support

the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I only rise because of the

minister's second time around on a letter from an eminent authority on

how to construct boards for educational institutes. The fact of the

matter is that he does not hold a majority opinion in this province,

and the minister knows it. That letter is an aberration, and that's the

reason it keeps coming up under this section. He read it in second

reading, and now we've had it again tonight.

The fact is that if the board is sufficiently diverse — in other

words, if it is maintained at 15 — then there is plenty of room for the

professional advice that can come from somebody of that ilk who is

actively engaged in the institute. On the other hand, in this same

section the minister is obviously considering putting public servants

on the board, because he says right here that he wants to be able to

pay them for serving on the board, notwithstanding the Public Service

Act. Why? To centralize his authority even further. If that doesn't

tell us everything about this, then I want to know what does. It tells

us everything, because he'll put his own employees on the board. For

heaven's sake, five trustees!

1 can say no more than that I cannot support this

section of this

bill. I said it in second reading, and I say it again now. I think it

is a devastation. I think that reducing the number and increasing the

minister's absolute authority on that board is wrong. As I indicated in

second reading, this particular area and

section give him almost the

same authority as if he were the president or principal of BCIT. He

runs it right out of his office, no question about it. Every piece of

evidence is here. It's all before us, even the fact that he wouldn't

accept the amendment from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose),

which was relatively benign.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, did we not vote on whether this

section would pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we voted on the amendment, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: If you'd pay attention, maybe you'd understand what's going on around here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I must observe that the hon. member

for New Westminster was also reflecting on the amendment, which has

been dispensed with.

[9:45]

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I will not reflect any

further, but I will say this: it is narrowing the board and is going to

be attracting public servants. Otherwise why would those parts of the

section be there in order to enable the minister to pay them for

serving on the board? It is outright control by the ministry, and

that's all there is to it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, some of the comments from the member for New Westminster cannot go unchallenged.

First of all, on the comment with respect to public servants, I

thought I made it abundantly clear during second reading that the

reason for making reference to someone in the public service is so that

you place somebody in the public service on exactly the same level as

you would somebody in the private sector. Why should somebody who

happens to be employed by government, whether related to the provincial

government or outside in a municipality or anywhere…?

MR. COCKE: What about BCIT, then?

HON. R. HEINRICH: Just a minute. I made that reference in second reading, and I made it clear to you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I made it abundantly clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What I'm saying is that if someone happens

to work for a municipality and has some particular degree of expertise,

why should he be precluded from getting an honorarium like anybody

else, just because he happens to be a public servant? As far as I am

concerned, there are a number of people in the public service who have

a great deal to offer, in one form or another, and I want them to be

properly rewarded, just like those who are appointed to sit

[ Page 2323 ]

on that board from the private sector and who receive a per diem or an annual amount.

The other item is with respect to the number of members sitting on

that board. Yes, the bill says five, but I thought that I made

reference to the fact that we're looking at something like 9 to 11,

which is a good working relationship. That suggestion has been made to

me. It's something that can work well. If you look under the old bill,

it states in subsection 2(1)(b)(

i) somebody from the health division

advisory committee; (ii) somebody from the engineering division

advisory committee; and (iii) somebody from the business division

advisory committee.... The object of the game is to appoint people who

in fact have given services in that area, and that is exactly what we

have done. As a matter of fact, there are two gentlemen, one by the

name of Hird and the other by the name of McPherson, both of whom

served under the two latter ones, engineering and business, and both

are appointed to that board as members because we wanted to capture the

value of the people who are offering their services of expertise from

the private sector.

The real issue here boils right down to sections (c), (d), (

e) and

(

f) under the present Institute of Technology Act where we make

reference to academic faculty, non-academic staff, student council and

alumni association. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon us as a

government to examine and thoroughly look at those candidates to be on

the board. Perhaps there is somebody who is a member of the alumni who

would like to serve and has some degree of expertise to offer. That is

for us to seriously consider.

I will make one other comment here. The letter to which the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) referred is not a letter at all; it is

nothing more than a statement which was given to the press and was

available to everybody. All that that particular faculty representative

said I can understand why, and that is all the reference is towards.

The last item is with respect to centralization. I don't think for

one moment that we can turn around and say that this is being

centralized as the result of the appointment of board members and not

appointing somebody, for example, from the academic faculty on BCIT.

The last thing even a Minister of Education of government needs is to

have all of the internal matters of a college or an institute on his

desk. That is for them to look after. In effect they really do operate

as an autonomous body. What we are looking for is this: being a

provincial institute, it is incumbent upon us to reflect the interests

of the community and if in fact somebody in the community says there is

a need to provide some particular service, we have got to be, on behalf

of the taxpayers of British Columbia, in a position to request the

board of BCIT, and by the board through its executive administration,

to seriously consider some of the concerns which the government has.

That is the only reason there is a reference to the words "policy and

directives," which is the identical language found in the college act,

Bill 20.

MR. ROSE: We find it as unacceptable in 19 as we did in 20.

That's the whole point of it. It is not in the

section we are dealing

with at all,

section 2. The directives are in the following section,

and I will have something to say about that a little later.

I think the minister protested too much when he said how much the

civil servants can add to this particular board. It seems to me that I

have heard more than once from that side of the House, since I have

been here, how you didn't want schoolteachers serving on school boards

because somehow they were privy to private knowledge and they would

communicate their views to their profession and therefore, unlike real

estate interests that might serve on municipal councils, it would

somehow be better if they didn't appear on those boards.

I would like to remind the minister, in terms of the governance,

that it was the governance suggested not only by the L'Estrange

report.... I believe that about 1973 that task force made a

recommendation about governance, boards, representatives of a region

appointed from the community, student, instructor and support staff

members. It was taken up by the then Minister of Education, now

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

and that's what we had in the old act. I would like to know what was

wrong with it. What was wrong with the community of interest that would

make the minister abandon it if it weren't for the fact that he wanted

a strong central control of people by people whom he could appoint and

therefore ultimately control? He said he doesn't want centralization.

Have a look at

section 3: it even allows him to plan courses, to cancel

courses. But that is another question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is

section 3.

MR. ROSE: I will get to

section 3 in a moment. On the

governance of the thing, the minister said yes, he will consider these

things in what was formerly my amendment, no. 5 edition, which no

longer exists because it was ruled out of order. I am pleased that the

minister is going to accept that, but I hope he will look for people

who are not just known to be complacent, pliant and willing to take

direction, but will give the minister the truth, the real knowledge of

what is going on there and what should go on there. People in power

have lots of sycophantic friends who want to tell him what they think

he wants to hear. This may not be what the minister wants to hear, but

maybe it is what he should hear.

HON. MR. SMITH: 1, am going to speak briefly on

section 2

because I don't think the

section is going to do the things in the

centralistic controlling way that the member believes they are. Indeed,

what it will do is remove some problems with potential conflicts of

interest in the old method of appointments which designated various

persons who had direct interests in the institution. Various

constituencies in the institution have the direct right to nominate

people to the board, and while they were generally very good nominees,

as I recall, it did place some of those people in a difficult position

when it came to personnel and other matters of that kind. I cannot

understand why there is the debate over the

section which allows public

servants to receive a remuneration for serving on the board, because

exactly the same

section was in the previous bill. Apparently they want

to reargue the previous bill.

I would also point out that another important improvement the

minister has brought in is that it allows these people to serve for

more than two terms. It doesn't put a sunset clause on the term of

their appointments. The sunset clauses are advantageous if you have a

deadwood appointee that you can't say no to a second time, because on

the third time he is eliminated by statute. Nevertheless there are

people who make a contribution to these boards whose terms should last

longer than the two. I can remember, when I had the position the

minister now holds, having two chairmen of that board

[ Page 2324 ]

who served very well and whose time had come under

the act and they had to leave the institution. I think artificial

limitations of terms of appointments are not desirable under

an act.

They should be open and there should be a chance to have more than two

terms, although people shouldn't be there forever. I hope the member

appreciates those parts of the bill and also the great work of the B.C.

Institute of Technology, which is the flagship of the college and

institute system, and one that we're very proud of in this government

and this province.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to expound at great

length on what the Attorney-General had to say. He has had great

experience as the Minister of Education. The point that we made in the

amendment, and perhaps the Attorney-General was out of the room, was

not that there weren't good people and not that they shouldn't be

renewed, but the amendment, which was found in order.... We haven't

reached that point yet; we've voted on 4 but not 5. Am I right, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on

section 2.

MR. ROSE: Right. But we've had a vote on the amendment which I offered as point 4?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendments were defeated.

MR. ROSE: What I was going to say in responding to the

Attorney-General was that we suggested that under subsection (1) each

member appointed shall serve for a three-year term, and may be

reappointed for a further term of three years. We weren't suggesting,

for instance, that if that person was making an able contribution he

should not be reappointed. We objected to the idea of "at pleasure"

when it became then

an act on the part of the government to end his or

her term for whatever reason. That was the only point about deadwood

that we were making there. If you want to go to that point, there are

some very good members of this Legislature who perhaps could be elected

without term as well, but our term comes to an end sooner or later,

whether we are good, bad or indifferent, and we have to run for

re-election. I have no objection to someone being reappointed if he is

serving well as a board member. But I think to be guaranteed a job in

perpetuity by this act, which is silent on the idea of term, is a

mistake.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General comes romping

in here, and he's got a proprietary feeling about this whole question.

If he listened to the argument, I have no objection to paying an

honorarium to public servants, except that if you're going to do it

there, then do it right across the board. Leave your board wide and

diverse enough so that you can have people from the faculty and alumni

included. They accept the fact that a public servant may give some good

advice, but not the fact that a person directly involved in education

can give good advice under these circumstances. That's why I used that

particular section. If it were sufficiently diverse, if they'd left it

alone in the first place, where it was sufficiently diverse, then we

would be relatively okay. I don't particularly like the power that the

minister has, even within the present circumstances, but he's got it.

[10:00]

Now he argues that he's going to have about nine members on the board,

yet he has the number five in the bill. Why? It's a lot easier to handle

five than it is to handle nine. It is a lot easier to handle five than it is

to handle 15, particularly when you have two or three of your own public servants

on the board.

That's all I have to say. If the minister wants to jump up again, I'll have a good deal more to say.

MS. BROWN: I wish the Attorney-General had been as concerned

about the conflict of interest evident in this government's treatment

of people through the abolition of the Human Rights Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on

section 2 of Bill 19.

MS. BROWN: Well, he made such a ludicrous statement that it's

difficult to deal with it in all seriousness. Here we have the highest

law enforcement officer in the province telling us that the reason

students and faculty members and workers are removed from the board is

because that constitutes a conflict of interest. What absolute

nonsense! He very clearly doesn't understand the function of the board,

and why his own colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), constituted the board that way in the

first place. It was because it was recognized that the people who use

the institute and were most affected by it should have some say in

terms of determining the policies, which is what the board does. If the

minister wants to eliminate those people from the board, he should come

up with a reason for it, but for the chief law enforcement officer in

the province to come in here and give us a legal opinion....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not in order, hon. member. To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: This is the

Section I'm discussing,

section 2, on

which the Attorney-General made a legal intervention and gave us the

benefit of his lack of knowledge...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order, To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: …stating that the reason these people should not

be on the board was because it would constitute a conflict of interest.

I'm merely suggesting to the Minister of Education that he would do

well to ignore the advice of his Attorney-General.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: if he is

reducing the board as a restraint measure — which I'm told it is — how

much money is going to be saved by cutting down the number of people to

a minimum of five, or, as he says, to nine or eleven? How much money is

going to be saved by doing this? I also would like to get a clear

statement from him — not like the fuzzy statement made by the

Attorney-General — as to why this

section did not include some

statement on term of office: whether a three-year or four-year term,

with the right to be reappointed twice, three times, four times, or

whatever. Why was it left absolutely open-ended with no limits?

[ Page 2325 ]

The third question I want to ask the minister is: what justification

does he have for deciding that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council —

namely, the cabinet — knows better than the community what the makeup

of the board should be? We need some justification for this business of

taking unto himself the power to decide who the members of the board

should be. What proof does he have that that really is in the best

interests of the community which uses BCIT? In what way has the board

failed in its present state, where it has the representation of

students, faculty members, staff and members of the community? And

don't listen to the Attorney-General. Don't take any of his advice.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General often offers good advice. Not too often, but often.

I want you to know that I was delighted that the Attorney-General

dropped in this evening to offer some comments on the bill. I was glad

to see him.

The first item, when we were starting to talk about the dollars: I

believe they're paid an honorarium right now of $2,000 per year. I

can't be sure of that, but I believe it's somewhere in that

neighbourhood. I really don't think the $2,000 is a major issue.

MS. BROWN: So it's not a restraint issue?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems that everything that the

opposition has told us is equivalent to restraint. There are a number

of policy matters that don't necessarily involve restraint or an impost

on the taxpayers; it's just a matter of policy. I think that's really

what we were elected to bring in.

Mr. Chairman, when someone serves at pleasure, provided they work

hard, give good suggestions and don't agree with the minister or

ministry but have their own ideas, that's what I would consider to be a

good board member. Somebody who even attends meetings on a regular

basis would be a good member, too. It doesn't matter who you appoint;

from time to time we encounter some difficulties. People seem to be

pleased about receiving appointments to these boards, whether they're

colleges or institutes or whatever we have the responsibility to make

appointments to. The fact is that sometimes people don't perform the

way you would like. Not that they agree or disagree; it's just to do

their job. I think that if we appoint at pleasure, that's going to work

out a little bit better.

When you talk about order-in-council appointments, again I make

reference to the parallel with colleges. At that time we felt that we

would sever, for a number of reasons, the relationship between school

boards and colleges, and that debate has been heard. I gather I can't

reflect on something past, but there is a parallel between 19 and 20.

As I mentioned before, I can't justify our policy and draw something

different for one particular organization as compared to all of the

others.

With respect to the recommendations, you seem to be of the view that

these are going to be political flacks. I can assure you that that is

not the case at all. As a matter of fact, the last two recommendations

came from somebody who said: "These people have given yeoman's service

to the board and we would like to have them reappointed."

MS. BROWN: Don't be so defensive.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's not being defensive. You asked these questions, and I thought that.... How would you like me to answer the questions?

MS. BROWN: Sit down and I'll tell you.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right, then....

Mr. Chairman, I think that the three questions asked by the member have been adequately answered.

MS. BROWN: No, they haven't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must observe that there has been some repetition of arguments from the various members of the committee.

MS. BROWN: If I can just get my questions in before the axe falls, because I'm sure closure is about to come down on us at any minute now.

Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to thank the minister for his

statement to the effect that this is not a restraint measure, that it's

a policy measure on the part of the government; I appreciate his

honesty in that regard. Other ministers and other members keep telling

us that what the government is doing is based on their restraint

program, so I want to thank the minister for that. I appreciate that

quote and I'll see to it that it is spread far and wide so that

everyone knows that.

I did not accuse the minister of appointing political hacks to the

board. I merely asked why the minister decided not to include, in terms

of appointments to the board, people who are most affected by BCIT. Why

the decision to kick off the students, faculty members, people who work

there and those other people who are specifically affected by that

institution itself? The minister doesn't have to be defensive about it;

all he has to do is explain to me why the decision was made not to

include those members any more. That's all I asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question does relate to an amendment that

was in fact ruled out of order, but the minister may peripherally wish

to respond.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of

committees at BCIT: in effect, committees involving the student

population and the faculty population. The board meetings are also

open. There is a great deal of dialogue. We can put anything we want in

writing, in bills, but the real answer is how the parties conduct their

business. You can make any kind of agreement or legal document you

like, but the fact of the matter is that if the parties to that

contract, the players in the network at the institution, are prepared

to be reasonable and rational people, they are going to accomplish what

they set out to do.

MR. NICOLSON: I have one quick question. The minister is

setting minimum numbers that must be on the board; why has he not set a

maximum? In other words, this change from 15 to 5 is a minimum, a

floor. Why has the minister not set a ceiling? What is to preclude 45

people from being appointed to the board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, there could have

been the suggestion "not less than and not more than" if we so wished,

but I don't see any particular value in

[ Page 2326 ]

it, when we know full well that the concern which

is expressed — and that I have found, at least, with my contact with

colleges — is to have not less than some in some areas where five or

seven may be suitable and adequate; it may be that others require 9 or

11. It seems to me that we don't want to shackle our wrists when in

fact they are going to vary. I don't dispute what the member is saying;

I suppose it's an idea. But I also would suggest that what we're

looking at is something in the area of between 7 and 11, depending on

the nature of the institute. I would draw the parallel with colleges.

It's an idea, but I thought that putting a minimum would suit the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would refer to

some of the repealed statutes, even for the B.C. Institute of

Technology, he would see that both minimums and maximums were set in

former statutes that have been repealed in this House. Whether it be

here or whether it be the B.C. Hydro board of directors or other areas

where sizes of boards are set, I suggest it would be an appropriate

place here; or, if you are making some change in the future, to

consider bringing back the practice of setting not just minimum numbers

but also setting maximums. One could appoint 45 or 100 people under

this statute. It is open to abuse and it is not good law.

[10:15]

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 8

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Rose

Mitchell

Brown

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

Journals of the House.

section 3.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I can predict, with what I think is a fair degree of accuracy, that probably

section 3 will ultimately pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. ROSE: I am speaking to the section. But whether it will

pass unamended is another question. This is an amending paragraph which

amends

section 5 of the original act. There is a lot of striking out

and adding and all the rest of it, but if you get down to the meat —

which I know you are anxious for me to do, Mr. Chairman — of the

amendment in

section 3, it says: "Subject to the policies and

directives of the minister, determine courses or programs to be offered

or cancelled at the institute."

The minister was up here a little while ago pounding his desk and

his chest and anything else that was handy, saying that this piece of

legislation wasn't going to be a centralizing measure. "Subject to the

policies and directives of the minister," the institute will add or

cancel courses. It seems to me that the total power in directing the

institute, which I presume is there to offer courses, not just for

shelter to keep the students in Burnaby out of the rain in the

winter.... It is there to offer courses — courses in the various trades

and skills and technical vocations. If the minister has that kind of

right then I can't see how he can dodge the issue that what he is doing

is essentially centralizing the power of decision-making in terms of

course offerings, not to an autonomous institution and its new board of

governors consisting of five or more members, but directly under this

minister.

The minister may say: "Well, I don't intend to use that power. Only

if they get stupid or crazy will I use this kind of power, but I need

to have that power." I don't know why he needs to have that power,

because if he can appoint the directors and he whispers in their ears

and they are the kind of compliant, well-meaning, tame people I suspect

he will appoint, then I think this is overkill. This is legislative

overkill. Why does he need this power? I know why he needs it. He needs

it because he wants to make it parallel to Bill 20. Because he has done

it in Bill 20, he thinks he should do it now in Bill 19. He might say:

"Well, it's consistent." I think it is foolishly consistent, and it

reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who had this to say one afternoon,

wandering down near Walden Pond: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin

of little minds."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What's a hobgoblin? You are sitting next to one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind the committee that

we are on

section 3 of Bill 19. We are not aware of such a Bill 20. The

member will relate his remarks to

section 3 of Bill 19 specifically.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you must admit that I was provoked.

If you don't protect me from such provocations it is very difficult for

me to speak directly to the bill. My concern is that the minister has

taken upon himself the total running of the institution. He has been

accused of this in terms of 19, 20 and 6, and we do not accept it. Then

he talks a little bit further about various subsections,

cross-sections, conflicts and all the rest of it, but the fact remains

that the minister will have complete and utter power over a previously

autonomous institution serving the needs of British Columbia. He may

get up and argue: "Look, we are putting all the money in it anyway —

it's the minister's money." Not the taxpayer's money or the people's

money but the minister's money. The minister thinks it is his money and

that he should have a totality of power in running the institution. It

will not surprise you, Mr. Chairman, that I have an amendment to offer

to this pernicious, centralizing, overpowering, dictatorial section. I

don't have any other adjectives that I can think of at the moment, but

they will perhaps suffice.

[ Page 2327 ]

1 would add the following amendment to

section 3. This follows the

(

b) section. I would like to renumber them because we have a (1.1)

here. The (

b) section talks about various conflicts and refers back to

the original bill and various agreements that were entered into after

July 7, subsection etc.... Anyway, this is retroactive legislation. It

goes back to July 7. I don't like it from that point; it is not a

forward-looking piece of legislation; it is a retroactive, retrograde

kind of legislation.

Here is (1.2), Mr. Chairman: "Where the minister issues a directive

cancelling a course for which the institute has already accepted

enrolments, a cause for action lies against the Crown." What I am

suggesting is that here is a situation in which an overbearing minister

— not this minister, not this convivial, friendly, moderate minister,

but perhaps a successor — decides that he is going to use the power

vested in him in this

section to cancel a course. In the meantime, the

institution, through its various calendars, may have offered the

course. It may have attracted sufficient interest that there are a

number of enrolments in that course, people had made plans, they had

moved to take up residence, they have purchased certain kinds of

textbooks, they may have paid their fee. If a course is cancelled under

those circumstances they are going to be out of pocket. Presumably

there will be a lot of disappointed people just as there are

disappointed people knocking at the doors of universities now trying to

get in and finding that there aren't places for them. There are, I

think, a number of cases which could be made that the citizens of our

province — those students — may have registered for a course that has

been offered and by fiat that course could be cancelled. I recommend to

the House that where a minister issues a directive cancelling a course

for which the institute has already accepted enrolment a cause for

action lies against the Crown. This will force the Crown to be

responsible. This will prevent the Crown from being all-powerful and

steamrolling its decisions or the decisions of the agents of the Crown

in the ministry from taking precipitous action that may bring hardship

to other citizens of British Columbia. We want them to have that action

against the Crown that doesn't rely on permission to take action

against the Crown.

[10:30]

That is the first half. I can see, Mr. Chairman, that you are

getting edgy there. I am not trying to abuse the House or you, sir; I

am just trying to explain, as is my duty, why I would move this kind of

an amendment. Further, Mr. Chairman, I have added now a (1.3). I will

explain it after I have read it for the edification of the House.

Section (1.3) follows immediately after (1.2): "The minister shall

incorporate all directives made under this

section into the annual

report of the ministry which is to be laid before the House once every

year." That's why we call it an annual report. This has to do with the

various policies and directives outlined under "j" of

section A. These

are courses that are offered or cancelled, and these will be

communicated to the appropriate institution — in this case, BCIT —

through directives. What we're attempting to do is to return to the

concept of open government. None of this furtiveness or secretiveness.

We want the minister to be open and upfront. If there's going to be a

directive to the board or administration of that institution; if the

ministry is, in fact, going to be managing that institution, we want

the public to know the nature of the directives. We want to know if the

minister is telling them to cancel or add courses, to seek higher

admission standards in various courses, or to change the nature of the

course offerings. Since he is in charge, we want the minister to be

accountable and not the administration of the institution solely. We

want an open, freedom-of- information government, wherein the

directives issued to this particular institution are made public. We

feel the same way in the case of Bills 20 and 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, first of all, we're mentioning

legislation that is not before this committee. Secondly, we are now

debating an amendment which has not been ruled on. Could the table

please have the amendment, and then perhaps we can decide on whether or

not the member should continue with his debate. Otherwise, please speak

to the section.

Hon. member, the amendment as proposed by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody is out of order on two grounds. Firstly, 1.2 imposes

payments out of public funds, and

section 1.3 is an obligation on the

Crown. The amendment is out of order.

MR. ROSE: If both amendments are out of order, then certainly I'm free to complete my remarks on the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If your remarks relate to the section.

MR. ROSE: I'm not very happy about that. I don't have the

appropriate citation or the experts sitting here with me, but I would

like to know why making public directives or directions in an annual

report — and both these words are used in various parts of these

statutes — needs to be out of order? It's not spending money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Legislation may be proposed by the government

which would allow for expenditures, but they cannot be proposed by a

private member. That's the rule.

MR. ROSE: It has to do with expenditures?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE:

Section 1.3 of my amendment does not propose expenditures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1.2, hon. member, clearly enlarges causes of action against the Crown, and potential liability.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't contradicting the Chair, or even asking

for a clarification on clause 1.2. I thought that your remarks were

directed to clause 1.3, which are all parts of the same amendment to

the same clause, which is clause 3 in the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1.3 imposes an obligation on the Crown and is out of order.

MR. ROSE: All right, Mr. Chairman. If I can't speak to my amendments I can certainly speak to the section.

We want to make certain, and this is what the amendments attempted

to do, as in the case of Bill 19 and Bill 20.... Just a minute, Mr.

Chairman. The minister got up and spoke about Bill 20, and so I don't

see why I should be precluded from a passing reference about it.

I think the point has been made as far and as strongly as I can make it. We want any directives to be made public. If I

[ Page 2328 ]

can't move it by amendment, I'd like to have the

voluntary agreement, or at least consideration, that what directions

are given to these colleges — because they will leak out anyway — will

be made public in the annual report. I wish he would consider that.

Then there will be no suspicion about what kind of unseen hand is

operating or directing from the Ministry of Education to the institute

concerned.

Further on the other one that was considered out of order, if

courses are cancelled or presumed to be cancelled, I would like the

minister not not to proceed with them if there have been fees paid for

courses offered, provided there is enough enrolment in there to justify

the course.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept the concern which

the member has expressed involving any potential policy or directives

given to the institution. The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned

earlier, that the board meetings for BCIT are open meetings and you can

rest assured that any suggestions which are made will be discussed at

those open meetings. That will be a matter of record. The opposition,

being a watchdog of government activities, I am sure, is going to raise

that issue.

The other point that the member raises with respect to any

obligations incurred by students who were enrolled in a class where, in

fact, there may be — which is highly unlikely — a directive as to

whether or not that class should proceed, would certainly be

considered. But I think the important thing is that it is not the

particular item to which the member is referring. What we are concerned

about in the matter of policy in directives is just this. What if, for

example, there is a program which is most important to the students who

are attending and of considerable interest to the people of British

Columbia, and there is some push made by BCIT to drop a particular

program? It seems to be in the interest of government representing all

of the people that we ought to have the opportunity to review any such

move.

The other item, which I think is clear when it comes to a matter of

policy in directives, is that there are a number of institutions in the

lower mainland, and one of the concerns that I have had expressed to me

by a number of college principals is the constant duplication of oodles

of courses. We know that they are costing a fair amount of money and

there is a push, as a matter of fact, by principals and college board

chairmen to try to impose some degree of rationalization on those

courses which are offered by a number of colleges. I think this is

something we ought to consider because with the moneys which are

available, we should be in a position to offer the best possible course

with the best possible instruction and not water that down by spreading

it around the lower mainland.

The member talks about them not being our funds, and I think he is

being facetious. They are taxpayers' funds and it seems to me that we

have an obligation to ensure that they are put to the best possible use.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister won't allow his

colleagues to intimidate him when he is trying to give a straight

answer to some straight questions. We really appreciate his taking the

time to answer the questions that are being put to him.

However, this

section is the one in which the minister takes unto

himself, as my colleague stated, the power to determine courses or

programs which should be offered or cancelled at the institute. He says

that one of the reasons for that has to do with duplication. Surely

that is not the decision of the minister. It seems to me that the

colleges, the boards or the councils, as the case may be, could get

together and make that decision themselves. For the minister to sit

here in Victoria and make an arbitrary decision about what programs

should be given by what institute is centralizing in part, and I'm not

sure that this is the best way in which those decisions should be made.

However, I rose because I have a question for the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not going to hurry up. I'm going to take

my time. Whether it is your wedding anniversary or not, I'm going to

take my time. Congratulations, incidentally.

The minister's responsibilities call for a very extensive curriculum

vitae, and that is what I want to ask him about. I want to know what

the minister's experience is. What are his academic qualifications or

special skills which equip him to take on the full responsibility for

deciding what courses or programs are in the best interests of the

institution involved and which ones should be cancelled and which ones

introduced? Tell us a little bit about the qualifications that you

bring to this very onerous task.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that question might be better asked during committee or during estimates.

MS. BROWN: This is committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee of Supply during the estimates of the minister. The minister may wish to respond as it applies to this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the first question which the member

raised, when we start talking about rationalization of courses within

the lower mainland, I honestly do not know what it is. But it seems to

me that once a college is established and it's rampant, there is

something about protection of turf. What they all need, recognize and,

in fact, are inviting someone to do is to bite the bullet and impose

some degree of rationalization, which simply means: let's avoid the

constant duplication of a lot of courses which are offered in the lower

mainland in all of the colleges, of which there are considerable.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am passing on to the member, in response to her

question, what in fact is being told to me by those charged with the

administration of these colleges. I'm telling you what they are telling

me. As a matter of fact, it was the first exposure I had when assigned

to this portfolio.

That leads me to answer the second question, as humbly as I can. My

experience and qualifications are identical to every member who sits in

this House. We were elected by the people. It's as simple as that. I

just hope that I bring to the portfolio good and sound reason and the

exercise of good discretion.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You're out of order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm out of order, my colleague now tells me.

[ Page 2329 ]

MS. BROWN: No, he's not. Discretion is never out of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I apologize to the member, Mr. Chairman. I have been ruled out of order in attempting to answer your question.

[10:45]

MS. BROWN: I just want to assure the minister that discretion

is never out of order, and that he should ignore the comments of his

colleagues. But I want to be clear that the minister is saying that the

colleges and institutes are incapable of making these decisions

themselves. You are, in fact, saying that they really are not

responsible, they cannot handle the task and that they have appealed to

you. This

section is in direct response to that appeal, is it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't put words in his mouth.

MS. BROWN: Why don't you go back to Yugoslavia? It was wonderful when you were away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members will come to order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, we got so much work done when that

minister was in Yugoslavia, even though he was there at the taxpayers'

expense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please, and I'll call the minister to order.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. I appreciate that. I just want the

Minister of Education to clarify, because I need this information to

pass on to one of these institutes, which is, as you know, in Burnaby

itself, that in fact this

section is a direct response to a request

made to him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes.

MR. ROSE: I want to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this

business of duplication and direction really isn't a change in

direction on behalf of the ministry. If the minister says that there

are duplications in the lower mainland, that presumes that the students

have equal travel access to each of the institutions. Presumably if

they had a requirement for a particular course in one institution —

let's say Langara — that was to be offered at Douglas, should it be

cancelled at Douglas because it's offered at Langara? Does that mean

that the students are then obligated to travel to that point? That is

not always easy for everyone. There aren't the travel facilities in the

lower mainland. We're dealing with the BCIT act here in 19; there

aren't any other institutions, really, since it has its own act, so we

don't have the duplications that we might have in 20. Is the government

embarking on a specialist approach to the various colleges as we had,

say, in Vancouver 40 years ago, where you had a technical high school,

a commercial high school, a high school of the arts and various other

kinds of institutions which specialized and therefore didn't offer the

kind of duplication that the minister seems to fear? That's really the

question that I want answered, because, you know, in the city of Prince

George there are a lot of high schools offering the same courses

because there is need for those courses to be offered because of

certain attendance areas which the students can reach. The same thing

happens at the post-secondary level as well. So that's one point that

I'd like clarified.

The other point is that the minister seemed to be saying in answer

to an earlier question that he wanted to avoid the cancellation of a

course by an institution, and thereby somehow protect the students. I

can't see an institution on the one hand cancelling a course and

needing the protection of the minister, and then on the other hand be

accused of duplication and empire-building. Certainly there are

stake-holders. If you invested your whole life in law, you'd probably

want to go and practice law, unless you want to be a judge or

something, and often a judge is just a lawyer who went into politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Like Leggatt.

MR. ROSE: He has no monopoly on that disease; lot's of people suffer from it. You won't, but he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section, please, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: He has provoked me again, Mr. Chairman.

But I want to make the point that the minister can't have it both

ways. He can't protect institutions from dropping courses and therefore

be an advocate on behalf of the student on the one hand, and then turn

around and express fear that there is going to be endless duplication

on the other. But I will say that if people spend their whole lives

developing certain kinds of expertise, and are offering their services

in a particular institution, yes, they are going to be concerned about

its continuance, and so they should be, unless you're prepared to

transfer them from one institution to the other or else lose what they

have to offer entirely. I don't think teachers are any different than

any other group of people when it comes to that point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the main thrust of the

member's concern, I have an example. BCIT had one particular course in

psychiatric nursing. First of all, BCIT was bulging at the seams, and

their main thrust is in business and technology. We thought it would be

sensible to move that particular program to Douglas College, because at

Douglas College there was a lot of space. But the fact of the matter is

that there was some degree of reluctance for BCIT to surrender that

particular program, and of course it wasn't that convenient because of

the space problems. So why not get it over to Douglas, where in fact

the space is available? It seems to me that makes good sense.

One of the big concerns which is being expressed to me by people in

the college system when we talk about rationalization is that the real

driver in here is enrolment. There are courses which are offered where

the enrolment is very small; in some cases it's almost embarrassing

with respect to some programs. I can't identify them now, but I can

assure you they have been related to me over the past little while. It

seems to me that what we should be looking at here is not the directive

with respect to what course can be offered on a policy matter, but are

the classes filled? That's all we're looking at. I think

[ Page 2330 ]

the members opposite are going to have to, as I mentioned earlier, have some degree of trust.

I hope that adequately answers that. I doubt it.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 19, Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: As dealt with at some length in the budget

address of July 7 this year, the government has authorized through the

Employment Development Act a total of $415 million for capital works

and job creation programs, of which $245 million is appropriated from

the consolidated revenue fund, and $170 million is to be provided

through regular capital-financing mechanisms.

Of the $245 million which is to be appropriated, $205 million is

being used to accelerate capital works normally funded through

ministries. This includes $189.6 million for highway construction,

$11.7 million for diking and associated river works, and $3.7 million

for projects related to agriculture within the province. A further $40

million will be used for special employment initiatives throughout

British Columbia on a variety of programs. One of these is the new

employment expansion and development program, a joint

federal-provincial effort commenced last year. Other programs have been

identified in the course of debate thus far and will continue to be

identified, particularly, I would think, during estimates debate.

The $170 million in capital financing will be applied to accelerated

health care projects which are expected to create about 5,600

worker-years of employment, and these will help sustain construction

firms in the province as the economy recovers. It should be noted,

also, that this initiative will further expand and improve British

Columbia's already high-quality health care facilities. This indicates

the government's commitment to creating jobs and building the

infrastructure for sustained economic growth and social development.

As I indicated a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the bill is essentially an

umbrella. It has been dealt with in some detail thus far in this

session, and no doubt will be dealt with in greater detail in the

course of the weeks to come.

I therefore now move second reading of Bill 16, the Employment Development Act.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose it's hard to vote against motherhood,

but it's also hard to compliment the government on bringing in this

kind of bill at this time. I appreciate the figures that the minister

gave — more quickly than I could write them down; it's all very well to

have this explanation now in second reading and then be expected to

respond intelligently to the various projects announced by the

government.

One wonders at the shell game — the projects that have been

cancelled by the government that were providing employment — providing

$415 million in this particular bill and yet cutting out a program of

some $3.9 million that was, in cooperation with the federal government,

providing work. It was a proven thing, and yet the provincial

government backed out of that. The federal government was so convinced

that it was actually doing something about unemployment in the province

that it decided to move in and pick up the provincial share of the

program in order to keep it going.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's just good business.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think you will have to admit and

agree with me that the House got along much better when that particular

minister was off in Switzerland or Yugoslavia or wheverever it was. I

don't know why he had to come back as soon as he did, because he

certainly contributed a great deal more to the economy of British

Columbia by being away and keeping out of....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We would be pleased to hear from that minister

on his feet, but like so many other ministers he prefers to talk from

his seat. He seems to have nothing to contribute other than

interjections from his seat.

[11:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't run your leadership campaign here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to come to

order, and we will proceed with orderly debate on Bill 16. The member

for Nanaimo has the floor and will be afforded that courtesy.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Certainly we will have a much better opportunity

in committee to ask the minister for some detail about the programs he

has announced. One wonders, for example, why these programs were not

included in the various ministerial presentations. We assume that we

will get to those some day, and it would seem to me that the figures,

as I jotted them down, would more properly have been presented to us by

the ministers when putting their estimates through the House. The

minister described many of these as being ordinary projects, ongoing

work that would be going on in any case. I took down the words "regular

financial...."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some are accelerated.

MR. STUPICH: But how can we discuss in second reading whether

they're accelerated, decelerated, belong here or belong somewhere else,

particularly in view of the limited

[ Page 2331 ]

information in the bill itself? There was some

information in the budget, but, again, not nearly enough to discuss

this bill properly in second reading. I don't know.... I think about

all I can say at this point is that the opposition does not intend to

get into a prolonged discussion of this particular bill in second

reading, but we will expect the minister to go into it in much more

detail when we get to committee stage.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I just wish to speak briefly to Bill 16,

because this bill, through its acceleration of the funding for diking

construction in this province, has had a very marked effect on a number

of communities that I have been personally involved with over the past

two and a half to three years. This decision by the Minister of Finance

to use this particular bill to allow some funding to go forward to

accelerate the construction of diking has meant that some communities

that were always subjected to the possibility of total destruction by

flooding, including a number of towns throughout the province, have now

had the opportunity over the last few months to complete that

construction. I have taken the opportunity to see almost every one of

those projects, including visits I have made since I moved between

portfolios. This is the money that is probably, in my opinion, the best

money spent by the government in many years in terms of cost

prevention, accident prevention and the prevention of trauma and grief.

If you could have seen the suffering that has gone on in the many

homes, families and communities because of the devastating nature of

floods that have always gone on in this.... Unless we're having a flood

at the particular time, it's not something people think about. But the

engineers and the municipal leaders throughout the province who rose to

the occasion when this offer was made by the government have done a

very good job and put people to work that would not otherwise be

working, in what I think is probably the most beneficial program that I

was ever involved with.

MR. LEA: I think this bill is worthy of support, but not

without some passing comments. This bill takes me back to the election

campaign. What is provided in this bill is somewhat the same package

that was put forward by our party. The borrowing source is different

and the projects that are going to be built are different than the ones

we put forward, but the principle is exactly the same. The principle is

that there is going to be money borrowed to create immediate employment

to create projects that will create some lasting wealth in the

community.

When you're going to borrow money in a downturned economy, I think

you have to take a look at a number of things. You're looking to create

some immediate employment. You're also looking to....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Did he have a long supper hour, Mr. Speaker, or what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will hopefully have order in

the House. Would the hon. minister allow the hon. member for Prince

Rupert to continue on Bill 16.

MR. LEA: As I was saying, when you are borrowing money to

create employment in a downturned economy there are a number of things

you should take into consideration.

Number one is that, hopefully, you will create some immediate jobs.

The second thing that you're trying to do when you're doing that is

spend the money on projects that will create lasting wealth in society.

Those things that create lasting wealth include transportation systems

— and this bill deals with some transportation systems. It deals with

hospital construction, and, again, there is some lasting wealth for the

community in the long run. But I cannot see how the government itself

can be in favour of this bill and in favour of this principle when in

fact they were against the very same thing during the last election.

That's a little bit amazing to me. Yes, the source of funding was

different, and the jobs that may have been created were different. But

I'm going to point out the benefits of the program that we were putting

forward during the campaign, as opposed t